X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200112261229.NAA13455@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.03 and libc sources
In-Reply-To:	<7263-Wed26Dec2001095654+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from Eli Zaretskii at "Dec 26, 2001 09:56:54 am"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:29:20 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 19:04:17 +0100 (MET)
> > 
> > According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > > >    if (!check_talloc(found_si ?
> > > > -                   type->stubinfo->struct_length : 0
> > > > +                   (unsigned int)(type->stubinfo->struct_length) : 0
> > > 
> > > This is really ridiculous on the part of gcc!!  Does it help to say 0U 
> > > instead of just 0, and leave the struct_length part alone?
> > 
> > No. Because the struct_length is signed.
> 
> Then what's the problem?  Does GCC treat 0 as unsigned?  Does 0L
> instead help?

The problem is as in the other cases: we have a situation of bool ?
signed : unsigned.


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -