Subject: Re: types gone amuck (Re: CVS commit: basesrc/bin/pax)
To: Klaus Klein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Squier <email@example.com>
Date: 10/28/2001 12:52:23
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 01:55:33PM +0100, Klaus Klein wrote:
> Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I only used "u_longlong_t" instead of "unsigned long long [int]",
> > because the latter is less to type.
> > Would you rather I change pax so that:
> > a) it uses unsigned long long instead of u_longlong_t, or
> > b) fix the port with the uncommon definition for u_long_long ?
> a), definitely. BTW, since you're already relying on C99 library
> features you might as well consider intmax_t, strtoimax() etc.
...and if you're going to do *that*, then you can avoid your other size_t issue
by using %zu instead of %lu. (c.f. another pax commit and resulting discussion
with Christos on source-changes).
Bill Squier (email@example.com) http://www.netbsd.org
I know I don't deserve another chance, but this _is_ America,
and as an American, aren't I entitled to one? --Sideshow Bob.