X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 15:29:19 +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: <1190-Wed26Dec2001152919+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: <200112261229.NAA13455@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:29:20 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: gcc 3.03 and libc sources
References:  <200112261229 DOT NAA13455 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: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 13:29:20 +0100 (MET)
> > > > > -                   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?
> 
> The problem is as in the other cases: we have a situation of bool ?
> signed : unsigned.

Yes, but who is the unsigned here?  You say that struct_length is
signed, which leaves us with zero.  That's why I suggested to try 0L.