[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher
From: |
arnold |
Subject: |
Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Dec 2019 03:12:11 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10 |
Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 12/15/19 12:14 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>
> > int64_t is just as standard as ptrdiff_t and just as clear.
>
> Actually, int64_t is optional (as even C18 and POSIX-2018 do not require it),
> whereas ptrdiff_t has been required since C89. More importantly, int64_t would
> be overkill on 32-bit GNU/Linux, whereas ptrdiff_t suffices and is typically
> more efficient.
>
> (Besides, what would we do if 72-bit pointers came back into vogue? :-)
Fine.
What about
typedef ptrdiff_t dfa_size_t
?
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher, (continued)
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher, Jim Meyering, 2019/12/13
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/13
- Re: intptr_t vs. uintptr_t, Bruno Haible, 2019/12/13
- Re: intptr_t vs. uintptr_t, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/13
- Re: intptr_t vs. uintptr_t, Bruno Haible, 2019/12/14
- Re: intptr_t vs. uintptr_t, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/14
- Re: intptr_t vs. uintptr_t, Bruno Haible, 2019/12/14
- Re: intptr_t vs. uintptr_t, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/16
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher, arnold, 2019/12/15
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/16
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher,
arnold <=
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher, Paul Eggert, 2019/12/19
- Re: bug#34951: [PATCH] grep: a kwset matcher not work in a grep matcher, arnold, 2019/12/20