[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: uid_t vs. gid_t

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: uid_t vs. gid_t
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:30:34 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)


On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 10:07:05AM +0200, Patrik Olsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 04:24 +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:

> > I wonder whether it wouldn't be smarter just to abolish gid_t
> > alltogether instead -- they are not likely to ever differ in
> > technical terms, and there is probably no type checking worth
> > talking of involved either...
> I thought about that too. Should it be wanted, I have attached a patch
> that does this.
>  72 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-)

Hm... Perhaps not such a good idea after all -- the actual code seems to
use gid_t everywhere; it's just the RPC definitions that are mixing them

I wonder whether it would be very ugly to abolish the one use of gid_t
in the RPC interfaces, but keep it in the code...

Or do it properly. How much work would it really be to use gid_t in all
the RPC interfaces that actually deal with GIDs?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]