Re: [PATCH 1/2] MinGW: Use pid_t more consequently, introduce uid_t for greater compatibility

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:

> Anyway, IMHO the correct declaration of e.g. getuid() is not "int 
> getuid()", but "uid_t getuid()" etc. So even if the uid_t type was not 
> required, it's a good change I think.

FWIW I concur with this reasoning.  Even if in this particular case, we 
could work around the issue, it is basically a non-intrusive, minimal 
janitorial patch.  Especially since the original author of the wrong 
signature concurs.

Ciao,
Dscho

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]