PATCH: unsigned/signed #2
claudiamoroder at st-ulrich.suedtirol.net
Mon Feb 18 11:48:06 GMT 2002
if you look at the original code you can see that the variable passed to the
function was uint32. I think it was the only logical consequence to choosed
uint32 for the loop counter.
Von: "Andrew Bartlett" <abartlet at pcug.org.au>
An: "Tim Potter" <tpot at samba.org>
Cc: "andreas moroder" <claudiamoroder at st-ulrich.suedtirol.net>;
<samba-technical at lists.samba.org>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Februar 2002 22:10
Betreff: Re: PATCH: unsigned/signed #2
> Tim Potter wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 02:54:43PM +0100, andreas moroder wrote:
> > > here anoother small patche to clean up the signed/unsigned situations.
> > Applied - thanks.
> I'm a little worried about the forced use of 'uint32' here? Why can't
> we just use an 'unsigned int'? On some platforms as strictly 32 bit
> uint may not be the best variable type - why not let the compiler figure
> that bit out?
> Andrew Bartlett
> Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
> Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org
> Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net
> http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
More information about the samba-technical