Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> writes: > The only problematic system is Win64, where "unsigned long" is 32 bit, > and therefore we must use size_t to address data in memory. > This is not to be confused with off_t, which is used for "data on disk" > (and nothing else) or timestamp_t which is used for timestamps (and nothing else). > > I haven't followed the "coccinelle script" development at all, if someone > makes a patch do replace "unsigned long" with size_t, that could replace > my whole patch. (Some of them may be downgraded to "unsigned int" ?) This paragraph makes it sound as if this patch is s/ulong/size_t/, but that contradicts with the previous paragraph, no? It is much better to leave a ulong that is not about the size of a memory region as-is, to be turned into appropriate and correct type later, than changing it into another wrong type (size_t). In short, we could do ulong to size_t with Coccinelle, but I do not think we want to blindly rewrite all.
