Re: lib/60249 (bitstring bit_ffc(), bit_ffs() type conflicts)

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Tue, 12 May 2026 23:44:00 -0700
    From:        B Harder <brad.harder%gmail.com@localhost>
    Message-ID:  <ABBA54F6-E19D-4CCE-A279-EB6D05CBC474%gmail.com@localhost>

  | It does seem strange that we've carried this (signed) int/(unsigned) size_t
  | macro... at all,

In general, I agree, and if I were designing it now, probably would not
use size_t (though I believe others here believe that size_t types should
be used to represent the size of anything, so not all would agree).

But:

  | let alone for so long

after all this time, it is not going to change now - other code might be
expecting to be able to pass size_t there, after all, that is what the
doc states, and changing things without any particularly good reason now
would be an issue - macros can't even be versioned quite the same way
functions can when we want to change their ABI (not that they have the
same issues either).

So, regardless of what might be, in at least my, and clearly your, opinion,
a better design, we won't be altering what we have in any way that affects
the defined interface.

  | Thanks again though for addressing the original PR - the macros
  | are better than they were.

OK, thanks, I will close the PR.

kre