Hey Peter,

On 2017-06-06 22:31, Peter Bex wrote:
> I noticed two problems after looking over the file-modification-time
> patches I recently submitted. [...] Attached are patches for this.

Seems sound, pushed.

> Strictly speaking, I suppose we should really add a new C_num_to_size_t
> or such, but if we do that, we will need to add it for every stupid
> opaque type that C might offer.  In practice, size_t is at most 64 bits
> so let's just keep that assumption (for now?).

Agreed, let's only chase these vapours when it's really necessary.

Evan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers

Reply via email to