[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 5/6] canonicalize: prefer signed integer types
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 5/6] canonicalize: prefer signed integer types |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:56:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-193-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Hi Paul,
> (seen_triple, canonicalize_filename_mode): Prefer signed to
> unsigned types where either will do, as they avoid some glitches
> in comparisons and can trap on overflow when debugging.
Please, please, can we have typedef names for these signed types that
are supposed to only have values >= 0 ? I object to losing information
that is important for reviewing the correctness of the code and of
future modifications.
Refer to this thread, where I voiced this objection first:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2017-06/msg00024.html
Then it sounded like you had understood my arguments, and we only need
to pick a good name:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2019-12/msg00079.html
Bruno
[PATCH 6/6] canonicalize: refactor can_mode flag, Paul Eggert, 2020/12/02
[PATCH 5/6] canonicalize: prefer signed integer types, Paul Eggert, 2020/12/02
- Re: [PATCH 5/6] canonicalize: prefer signed integer types,
Bruno Haible <=
Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Adhemerval Zanella, 2020/12/11
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Paul Eggert, 2020/12/17
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Adhemerval Zanella, 2020/12/18
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Adhemerval Zanella, 2020/12/18
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Paul Eggert, 2020/12/18
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Paul Eggert, 2020/12/24
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Tom G. Christensen, 2020/12/31
- Re: [PATCH 1/6] canonicalize-lgpl: fix EOVERFLOW bug, Bruno Haible, 2020/12/31