Re: Re[2]: empty_zero_page definition clash in 2.0.36

[MOLNAR Ingo]

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Evgeny Stambulchik wrote:

> >  (just pedantic, but the right fix is to make it (char *) not (unsigned
> >  char *), because this is how it was defined and used previously.
> 
> Hmm, I also used signed at the beginning, but then looked into 2.2.0 sources and
> there it's unsigned...

it's inconsistent in 2.2 (look at the COMMAND_LINE deefine). But it doesnt
really matter, i said i'm pedantic :) 

-- mingo