Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:10:19 -0400
Message-Id: <200106191910.PAA21280@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200106191900.VAA18430@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:00:10 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: size_t and ssize_t
References:  <200106191900 DOT VAA18430 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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


> There is no reason for or against any change.  Nobody is supposed to
> know what those types are, so it shouldn't matter what they are.  Is
> there a specific reason for the change?

Let me amend that by saying "as long as you don't change the size or
signedness of the type".  Changing the size will break binary
compatibility, and changing the signedness will break functionality.