Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is the criteria for being listed as maintainer of a gnulib > module? Wrote the code? Interested in supporting the code? > Modularized the code? Wrote the module file? Gnulib developer?
Yes to all the above. :-) The criteria aren't formal, but basically it's the person who makes sure that the code is fixed and/or improved when needed. > In this case, I think naming me and Bruno as maintainer would be the > right thing. Ok? It's fine with me, though I'd like to hear Bruno's opinion. > Should we start replacing > > /* Get SIZE_MAX. */ > #include <limits.h> > #if HAVE_STDINT_H > # include <stdint.h> > #endif > > and/or > > #ifndef SIZE_MAX > # define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1) > #endif > > with > > /* Get SIZE_MAX. */ > #include "size_max.h" I don't see a need for it, no. (size_t) -1 works just fine, unless you need SIZE_MAX in #if lines. Also, there's no point to that last "/* Get SIZE_MAX. */" comment. (That comment is almost as redundant the one in "a++; /* Add 1 to a. */". :-) > Is SIZE_MAX guaranteed to be ((size_t)-1)? Yes. That's true in both C89 and C99. For every unsigned type T, ((T) -1) is guaranteed to be T's maximal value. > Should size_max.h, as a safety precaution, read: > ... > # ifndef SIZE_MAX > # define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1) > # endif No, because the main point of size_max.h (from my point of view, anyway) is to define a SIZE_MAX value that can be used in #if lines. Come to think of it, if your uses of SIZE_MAX are not in #if lines, why don't you just write #ifndef SIZE_MAX # define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1) #endif after all your system includes? That is, do you really need a size_max module? It seems like a lot of work to reduce three easily-understood lines to one. _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
