From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: size_t vs "unsigned long" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:05:13 -0700 Message-ID: <7v641newom.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vabr0djqr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071003204801.GC28188@artemis.corp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Pierre Habouzit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 03 23:06:34 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IdBPm-0008VY-JN for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:05:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755448AbXJCVFX (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:05:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755577AbXJCVFW (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:05:22 -0400 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:53960 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753505AbXJCVFU (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:05:20 -0400 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79D0141029; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F391412D4; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:05:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20071003204801.GC28188@artemis.corp> (Pierre Habouzit's message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:48:01 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Pierre Habouzit writes: > Well, afaict, on every linux archs I know of, unsigned longs and > size_t are the same. Though, I don't know if that holds for the msys > port, and if that does not holds, then a s/unsigned long/size_t/ would > help them. Else, for consistency sake, I believe the change is a good > one. FWIW, I am already getting bitten on a FC box with gcc 4.1.1 20060525 that warns about the wrong type being passed, as I usually build things with -Werror; the issue is not just "they are of the same underlying type".