On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 01:55:33PM +0100, Klaus Klein wrote:
> Luke Mewburn <lukem@netbsd.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 (groo@old-ones.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.