Re: [PATCH/RFC v1 1/1] Use size_t instead of unsigned long
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 20, 2018, 01:36 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqin0scyxh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20181119163323.GA15913@tor.lan>
Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
> The only problematic system is Win64, where "unsigned long" is 32 bit, > and therefore we must use size_t to address data in memory. > This is not to be confused with off_t, which is used for "data on disk" > (and nothing else) or timestamp_t which is used for timestamps (and nothing else). > > I haven't followed the "coccinelle script" development at all, if someone > makes a patch do replace "unsigned long" with size_t, that could replace > my whole patch. (Some of them may be downgraded to "unsigned int" ?)
This paragraph makes it sound as if this patch is s/ulong/size_t/, but that contradicts with the previous paragraph, no? It is much better to leave a ulong that is not about the size of a memory region as-is, to be turned into appropriate and correct type later, than changing it into another wrong type (size_t).
In short, we could do ulong to size_t with Coccinelle, but I do not think we want to blindly rewrite all.