[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t |
Date: |
Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:12:35 +0200 (MEST) |
On 9 Jun 2001, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Ok, do we have a conclusion? I'd say we need to move away from
> scm_*_t towards scm_t_*, which shouldn't be complicated, and make
> scm_t_bits an unsigned type. For list lengths etc, we continue to use
> size_t for now.
>
> As a bonus, we might check for uintptr_t and use that for scm_t_ubits
> if it is found. If not, we use unsigned long.
>
> Everybody agrees?
I agree.
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/05
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/09
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/09
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t,
Dirk Herrmann <=
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/13
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/11