Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/8] rebase-interactive

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Mar 26, 2018, 22:35 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1803270034040.77@ZVAVAG-6OXH6DA.rhebcr.pbec.zvpebfbsg.pbz>
In-Reply-To: <CAKk8isp_qx1ajgRryhBw6TYBoaa8fJU6hP3JyUWAx20knQSLXA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Wink Saville wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> > I was just going by what the reported compiler error message was.
> > It said that "unsigned long" didn't match the uint64_t variable.
> > And that made me nervous.
> >
> > If all of the platforms we build on define uintmax_t >= 64 bits,
> > then it doesn't matter.
> >
> > If we do have a platform where uintmax_t is u32, then we'll have a
> > lot more breakage than in just the new function I added.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff
> 
> Should we add a "_Static_assert" that sizeof(uintmax_t) >= sizeof(uint64_t) ?

To come back to the subject that all of the mails in this here mail thread of you gentle people bear: Wink's patches look good to me, and I would like to have them be bumped down the next/master waterfall.

Ciao, Dscho