Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-11 Thread Philip Guenther
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Timo Buhrmester wrote: >> Can you clarify why you used int instead of int32_t? > Considering that > - the comment around it said ``Find an integer type that is at least 32 > bits'' > - int may be less than 32 bits wide (C99 5.2.4.2.1)

Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-10 Thread Nicholas Marriott
I think all of these except perhaps Coproc_id would be better as plain int not int32_t. The typedefs could probably die completely (definitely Tflag anyway) but separate diff. On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:27:14PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote: > I may be totally off base here, but: > > INT32's

Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-10 Thread Nicholas Marriott
It would be more helpful to post the diff again rather than a link buried in another thread. Any oks for this? Index: jobs.c === RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/ksh/jobs.c,v retrieving revision 1.41 diff -u -p -r1.41 jobs.c --- jobs.c

Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-10 Thread Todd C. Miller
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:51:37 +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > It would be more helpful to post the diff again rather than a link > buried in another thread. > > Any oks for this? OK millert@ - todd

Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-10 Thread Martijn van Duren
On 09/10/15 15:56, Michael McConville wrote: Martijn van Duren wrote: I already sent this diff on September 1st.[1] Pointed out in private to and ok by nicm@ [1]http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=144112883814618=2 Ah, awkward. I hadn't seen this. Can you clarify why you used int instead of

Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-10 Thread Michael McConville
Martijn van Duren wrote: > I already sent this diff on September 1st.[1] Pointed out in private > to and ok by nicm@ > > [1]http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=144112883814618=2 Ah, awkward. I hadn't seen this. Can you clarify why you used int instead of int32_t?

Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-10 Thread Ted Unangst
> - * NOTE: INT32 may end up being more than 32 bits. > /* Table flag type - needs > 16 and < 32 bits */ > -typedef INT32 Tflag; awkward...

Re: ksh INT32 type

2015-09-10 Thread Timo Buhrmester
> Can you clarify why you used int instead of int32_t? Considering that - the comment around it said ``Find an integer type that is at least 32 bits'' - int may be less than 32 bits wide (C99 5.2.4.2.1) - int32_t is not guaranteed to exist (C99 7.18.1.1p3) The most appropriate type would be

ksh INT32 type

2015-09-09 Thread Michael McConville
I may be totally off base here, but: INT32's comment suggests that the configure script checks that int is >= 32 bits. However, i don't think that script's around anymore, and ANSI specifies a minimum of only 16 bits. The comment also says that INT32 can be 64 bits, but it's then used as Tflag,