On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:33:08PM +0100, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
Dear Steve Langasek, you wrote:
The intention here is to use size_t in situations where the value is known
to be non-negative.
I don't see any reason why you should use size_t for that instead of
unsigned int.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 09:33:08PM +0100, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
I don't see any reason why you should use size_t for that instead of
unsigned int. size_t is intended for use in describing the size of objects
in memory, not just for anything you know should be non-negative.
Hm, well,
Dear Steve Langasek, you wrote:
The intention here is to use size_t in situations where the value is known
to be non-negative.
I don't see any reason why you should use size_t for that instead of
unsigned int. size_t is intended for use in describing the size of objects
in memory, not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/25/07 14:33, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
Dear Steve Langasek, you wrote:
The intention here is to use size_t in situations where the value is known
to be non-negative.
I don't see any reason why you should use size_t for that instead of
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:54:06AM +0100, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
Falk Hueffner filed a bug (Bug#412003) against the 2.10 release of the Yodl
package. He detected that the latest version did not run correctly on the
Alpha (see, e.g.,
Dear Steve Langasek, you wrote:
... I can point at the broken code:
void gram_DEFINEMACRO()
...
size_t nargs;
...
if (parser_number_parlist(parser, (int *)nargs, true) == SUCCESS)
...
if ((size_t)nargs 9 + 26 + 26) /* 1-9, a-z, A-Z*/
You can't take a
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:26:00AM +0100, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
The intention here is to use size_t in situations where the value is known
to be non-negative.
Why don't you simply use unsigned int or (equivalently) just unsigned?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To
Frank B Brokken [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, first of all, thanks for your help. I'm sure it'll solve the
problem for the time being. But I'm left with an uneasy feeling. On the
one hand I know that what you write is true in principle. But on the
other hand, I'm curious about what might be
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 03:35:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Writing a 32-bit value into the first half of a 64-bit variable (which is
what happens when you pass a size_t * as an int * and then write to it)
isn't guaranteed to get you anything useful regardless of how you
initialize it
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:26:00AM +0100, Frank B. Brokken wrote:
Well, first of all, thanks for your help. I'm sure it'll solve the problem for
the time being. But I'm left with an uneasy feeling. On the one hand I know
that what you write is true in principle. But on the other hand, I'm
Dear list members,
Falk Hueffner filed a bug (Bug#412003) against the 2.10 release of the Yodl
package. He detected that the latest version did not run correctly on the
Alpha (see, e.g.,
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=yodlarch=alphaver=2.10-1stamp=1171904919)
The problem I'm now
11 matches
Mail list logo
