From: Robert Millan <r...@aybabtu.com> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:38:38 +0100
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:56:43AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > Quoting David Miller <da...@davemloft.net>: > > > >>> I was considering making grub_size_t long and grub_ssize_t unsigned > >>> long. I remember that it required many changes in string formats, so I > >>> didn't feel it would be justified. But we could try it again. > >> > >> You should use whatever is the appropriate size_t/ssize_t type on > >> the given platform+ABI, and that way GRUB could use "%Zd" and/or > >> "%zd" throughout. Was that the plan? > > > > No, the plan was to use long. We don't support architectures where long > > and size_t have different sizes. I'm not aware of such architectures. I > > don't care about win64, as it would need some very special handling > > (perhaps redefinition of long). > > Maybe Christian can shred some light on this ;-) I've checked a lot of cases (other than win64) and this assumption that sizeof(long)==sizeof(size_t) seems to hold. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
