Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm afraid I'm still not convinced this is a good idea for the reasons > I explained previously [1] together with an alternative approach to > silencing these warnings. What makes "unsigned long" an incorrect > choice when that's what "git diff" and "git apply" use? > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/git/e396131c-1bd3-46d0-bae6-cd97ca9710d8@xxxxxxxxx Ah, this patch still does that? I was hoping that it got corrected already after it was pointed out in the previous iterations. I agree with you that size_t is a dubious type to use for the line numbers there. diff.c defines "struct emit_callback" with lno_in_{pre,post}image members that are of type "int", which is somewhat dubious, too, but at least we don't run on 16-bit machines, and being limited to 2 billion lines is probably OK. I am OK to upgrade that to long (if we use negative values for some oob signal) or ulong, but that is clearly outside of this topic. >> Add macro str_to_size_t for converting a string to size_t. >> Test if convertion fails with over or underflow. > > That is welcome, but the implementation needs tweaking. If you look at > other uses of strtoul() in our code you'll see that (somewhat > unusually) one needs to set errno to zero before calling strtoul() as > one cannot tell from the return value whether there was an error or > not. As errno may have been set by a previous function call it needs > to be cleared before calling strtoul() so we can be sure the error > came from strtoul(). Nice advice. > Best Wishes > > Phillip Thanks. By the way, who is <CAPig+cQ49Hdc_8=mRhhJDTny_Kqo6Wg6Nr98rsBN_YXmBrQ6kA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and why is such an apparently bogus e-mail address Cc'ed?
