X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:56:54 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <7263-Wed26Dec2001095654+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.1.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200112251804.TAA11460@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Tue, 25 Dec 2001 19:04:17 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: gcc 3.03 and libc sources
References:  <200112251804 DOT TAA11460 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

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 19:04:17 +0100 (MET)
> 
> According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > >    if (!check_talloc(found_si ?
> > > -                   type->stubinfo->struct_length : 0
> > > +                   (unsigned int)(type->stubinfo->struct_length) : 0
> > 
> > This is really ridiculous on the part of gcc!!  Does it help to say 0U 
> > instead of just 0, and leave the struct_length part alone?
> 
> No. Because the struct_length is signed.

Then what's the problem?  Does GCC treat 0 as unsigned?  Does 0L
instead help?