On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:19:54 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> I did verify the above in a copy of WG14/N1124. For anyone that doesn't
> recognize that, that's the draft from the C99 working group that I've
> been told is remarkably similar to C99 but distinct in that it's freely
> available[*]. I
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:36:14 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> The sequential identifiers have the advantage of being guaranteed to
> be unique (until we overflow a 64-bit unsigned integer), and also take
> up half as much space in the "notmuch search" output (16 columns
> rather than 32).
> [...]
On
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:36:14 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> -NOTMUCH_THREAD_ID_SQUELCH='s/thread:/thread:XXX/'
> +NOTMUCH_THREAD_ID_SQUELCH='s/thread:/thread:XXX/'
Caught you not running your test suite before submitting v2 of a patch!
:-)
This
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:35:39 +0100, "Sebastian Spaeth" wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:36:14 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> > -NOTMUCH_THREAD_ID_SQUELCH='s/thread:/thread:XXX/'
> > +NOTMUCH_THREAD_ID_SQUELCH='s/thread:/thread:XXX/'
>
> Caught you
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:40:00 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> What about the following? This could also fix Sebastian's problem.
...
> +#define __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS
> +#include
...
> -sprintf (thread_id, "%016llx", notmuch->last_thread_id);
> +sprintf (thread_id, "%016"PRIx64,
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:58:53 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth
wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:36:14 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> > diff --git a/lib/database-private.h b/lib/database-private.h
> ...
> > +
> > +uint64_t last_thread_id;
>
> throws:
> lib/database-private.h:37: error: 'uint64_t' does not
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:36:14 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> diff --git a/lib/database-private.h b/lib/database-private.h
...
> +
> +uint64_t last_thread_id;
throws:
lib/database-private.h:37: error: 'uint64_t' does not name a type
Is it just me, or have I made an error in applying this patch?
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:36:14 -0800, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
diff --git a/lib/database-private.h b/lib/database-private.h
...
+
+uint64_t last_thread_id;
throws:
lib/database-private.h:37: error: 'uint64_t' does not name a type
Is it just me, or have I made an error in
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:58:53 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth sebast...@sspaeth.de
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:36:14 -0800, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
diff --git a/lib/database-private.h b/lib/database-private.h
...
+
+uint64_t last_thread_id;
throws:
lib/database-private.h:37:
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:19:54 -0800, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
I did verify the above in a copy of WG14/N1124. For anyone that doesn't
recognize that, that's the draft from the C99 working group that I've
been told is remarkably similar to C99 but distinct in that it's freely
The sequential identifiers have the advantage of being guaranteed to
be unique (until we overflow a 64-bit unsigned integer), and also take
up half as much space in the "notmuch search" output (16 columns
rather than 32).
This change also has the side effect of fixing a bug where notmuch
could
The sequential identifiers have the advantage of being guaranteed to
be unique (until we overflow a 64-bit unsigned integer), and also take
up slightly less space in the "notmuch search" output (20 columns
rather than 32).
This change also has the side effect of fixing a bug where notmuch
could
The sequential identifiers have the advantage of being guaranteed to
be unique (until we overflow a 64-bit unsigned integer), and also take
up slightly less space in the notmuch search output (20 columns
rather than 32).
This change also has the side effect of fixing a bug where notmuch
could
The sequential identifiers have the advantage of being guaranteed to
be unique (until we overflow a 64-bit unsigned integer), and also take
up half as much space in the notmuch search output (16 columns
rather than 32).
This change also has the side effect of fixing a bug where notmuch
could
14 matches
Mail list logo
