From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:11:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MinGW: Use pid_t more consequently, introduce uid_t for greater compatibility
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0912301209310.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <bdca99240912291716g74c35f22r7599f2c254fb1b09@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:

> Anyway, IMHO the correct declaration of e.g. getuid() is not "int 
> getuid()", but "uid_t getuid()" etc. So even if the uid_t type was not 
> required, it's a good change I think.

FWIW I concur with this reasoning.  Even if in this particular case, we 
could work around the issue, it is basically a non-intrusive, minimal 
janitorial patch.  Especially since the original author of the wrong 
signature concurs.

Ciao,
Dscho