Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:21:25 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers
In-Reply-To: <3947C7E1.DA22677D@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000615112109.11632G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> > 
> > > Catched another one - our wint_t is 'int' and their 'unsigned int'.
> > 
> > The way we define wint_t will be important when (if) we support wide
> > characters in a non-trivial way.  As long as our support is trivial, we
> > can switch (in the next djdev) without risking any problems, I think.
> 
> OK to install?
[snip]
> -#define __DJ_wint_t     typedef int wint_t;
> +#define __DJ_wint_t     typedef unsigned int wint_t;

Won't this interfere with our definition of WEOF (which is negative)?