[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: setgroups
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: setgroups |
Date: |
Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:01:44 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) |
address@hidden (Paul Jarc) writes:
> unsigned long lgid = SCM_INUM (foo);
> GETGROUPS_T gid = lgid;
> if (gid < 0 || lgid != (unsigned long) gid) overflow;
>
> - Is SCM_INUM guaranteed to fit in unsigned long? If not, what type
> can we use instead?
I believe scm_t_bits (there's also scm_t_signed_bits) may be what you
want.
> - If GETGROUPS_T is signed and "gid = lgid" overflows, the C standard
> says it's undefined behavior. Are we worried about that, or are we
> confident that it'll just wrap on platforms we care about?
I wondered about signed vs unsigned gid_t too...
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
- Re: setgroups, (continued)
- Re: setgroups, Paul Jarc, 2003/04/17
- Re: setgroups, Rob Browning, 2003/04/17
- Re: setgroups, Marius Vollmer, 2003/04/18
- Re: setgroups, Paul Jarc, 2003/04/18
- Re: setgroups, Paul Jarc, 2003/04/18
- Re: setgroups, Paul Jarc, 2003/04/18
- Re: setgroups, Paul Jarc, 2003/04/21
- Re: setgroups, Rob Browning, 2003/04/18
- Re: setgroups, Paul Jarc, 2003/04/18
- Re: setgroups,
Rob Browning <=