Re: [PATCH] sign-compare: 32-bit support

> On 32-bit platforms, ssize_t may be "int" while size_t may be
> "unsigned int".  At times we compare the number of bytes we read
> stored in a ssize_t variable with "unsigned int", but that is done
> after we check that we did not get an error return (which is
> negative---and that is the whole reason why we used ssize_t and not
> size_t), so these comparisons are safe.
> 
> But compilers may not realize that.  Cast these to size_t to work
> around the false positives.  On platforms with size_t/ssize_t wider
> than a normal int, this won't be an issue.