Re: libltdl & 64-bit lint

[libtool-patches]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 02:32:01AM +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:05:52PM -0500, address@hidden wrote:
> > 2001-09-30  Albert Chin-A-Young <address@hidden>
> > 
> >         * ltdl.c: change some types to size_t from int because
> >         strlen() returns size_t. argz_len changed to size_t in
> >         foreach_dirinpath() because argzize_path() takes 3rd
> >         argument as size_t, not int. Based on lint run from
> >         Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden>.
> > 
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:04:35AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > Here is the output from Sun's 64-bit lint tool when run on libltdl
> > > current as of September 29. You will notice that there are a number of
> > > type down-conversions going on when the code is 64-bit.  In order to
> > > be safe, these types should jive for both the ILP32 and LP64 data type
> > > models.
> > > 
> > > (390) warning: suspicious comparison of unsigned with 0: op "<="
> > 
> > static lt_ptr
> > realloc (ptr, size)
> >      lt_ptr ptr;
> >      size_t size;
> > {
> >   if (size <= 0)
> > 
> > Is size_t always unsigned?
> 
> Yup.  This must be a result of careless code tweaking on my part.  I've
> made this into `==' in addition to the changes in your patch.
> 
> I wonder, should we also test for a system definition of size_t at
> configure time?  And presumably substitute for `unsigned long' if the
> system definition is missing?

Nah. We already use size_t and have not had any complaints.

-- 
albert chin (address@hidden)