X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <49888DDE.1000900@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:33:02 +0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: "Incompatible" typedefs References: <1233680809 DOT 17414 DOT 1298297091 AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> In-Reply-To: <1233680809.17414.1298297091@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Charles Wilson wrote: > I ran across an oddity in the cygwin headers today. > has > typedef long int32_t > typedef unsigned long uint32_t > Now, on cygwin, there's no real harm. But from the C standard, long and > int are distinct types, so the following: This is the 32-bit equivalent of the exact same problem that cause the template resolution failure that Marco and Tatsuro ran up against last week. I think we should probably add the missing 'int' to both 32- and 64-bit types. Linux looks like it does it that way. cheers, DaveK -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/