Hi Michael, On 9/13/20 8:01 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Casting to long is the historical practice here, and should be sufficient, > don't you think? I realize there's an argument for making all of these > system data type casts intmax_t / uintmax_t. But the counterarguments > (admittedly not compelling), are: I was casting to (long) until I accidentally met with a cast to (intmax_t) in ftw.3 (now I realize it was the only one in all of the pages; lucke me). I saw there a good point in using those types and tried it to see what you think about them. I still haven't sent you a big patchset with s/(long)/(intmax_t)/ because I was waiting for this discussion :) > > * Some people might still be confined to a pre C-99 world I guess that people are dealing with very special hardware/software and can be trusted to understand what the C99 types are and which pre-C99 do the job for them; intmax_t.3 might also help ;). If someone doesn't live in such a special world and just doesn't know the types, it's a good moment to learn them. > * Churn (lots of changes) True ... But if changes are trivial enough, maybe a single big patch can do it. > * (long) is a sufficient cast for all of these types > (except off_t). I don't like exceptions very much. Maybe someone sees (long) all over the place and thinks 'long' is enough everywhere and misuses it. > > Your thoughts? Your thoughts? Thanks, Alex
