Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 20:36:14 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id: <1659-Thu23Jan2003203612+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3E2FB5F0.B7FD75FC@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:29:20 +0000)
Subject: Re: ssize_t: int -> signed long [PATCH]
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1030123081522 DOT 15630C AT is> <3E2FB5F0 DOT B7FD75FC AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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

> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:29:20 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> > 
> > Why not make it ssize_t?  That way, we avoid any breakage in the future,
> > if ssize_t is changed.
> 
> I thought about that and it should work. But then we pollute <stdio.h> with
> ssize_t. Is that good, bad or ugly?

No, we don't pollute stdio.h because it already includes sys/djtypes.h
which defines ssize_t.

> > Again, why not change the return value to ssize_t?  Will that break
> > anything?
> 
> The return type is already ssize_t. The problem is that there are two possible
> return values: one from FSEXT, one from normal operation. The normal operation
> path can work with ssize_t. The FSEXT call returns an int:
> 
>     int function(__FSEXT_Fnumber func_number, int *rv, va_list args);

Perhaps we should change FSEXT to return an ssize_t.