Quentin Garnier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:21:09PM +0100, Christian Biere wrote:
> > Quentin Garnier wrote:
> > > Anyone objects?  The size_t -> ssize_t is necessary to avoid
> > > signed/unsigned mismatch, if we ever want to warn on that (I thought we
> > > did, though).
> > 
> > Why not the smaller fix?
> 
> I don't see any good reason not to make ci_blocksize a ssize_t.

Unsigned arithmetic is less error-prone, IMHO. Negative buffer sizes?
Does NetBSD run on blackholes?


-- 
Christian