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, wel
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
> > unsigne
-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
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
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 cur
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 bef
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 mig
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/
--
T
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
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.,
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=yodl&arch=alpha&ve
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=yodl&arch=alpha&ver=2.10-1&stamp=1171904919)
The problem I'm now confro
11 matches
Mail list logo
