On Sun 01 Oct 2006 at 23:59:11 +0000, Duncan wrote: > Renamed subject to give it a bit more weight. > > Those on x86 shouldn't see a difference one way or the other, but amd64 > and possibly other non-x86 archs will need the patch in 358654. Take the > second patch, which includes both the first one and the additional change > Charles mentioned. > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358654
I see that the type size_t is being used for part numbers? That seems rather inappropriate, since size_t is meant to be used for sizes of C and C++ objects (such as the result type of sizeof() and argument to malloc()), and hence will vary by architecture (typically related to pointer size). Better to use some kind of integer consistently, rather than to bring more consistency into the (ab)use of size_t, which this patch appears to do. To make things clearer, a partno_t could be introduced which could, if really necessary, be either int32_t or int64_t (but I don't think part numbers would ever require more than 32 bits, unless the name is used incorrectly). -Olaf. -- ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- You author it, and I'll reader it. \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- Cetero censeo "authored" delendum esse. _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
