Re: [PATCH v2] Expand bitpos and type.length to LONGEST and ULONGEST

Jan Kratochvil
2012-05-16T07:19:33Z

On Wed, 16 May 2012 05:50:12 +0200, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> It would be safer in this case to keep length as LONGEST because
> while I did try to check for all cases where ULONGEST may cause a
> regression (like above), but I cannot say for sure that it's all
> perfect.

But type->length was already unsigned before. I think it is fine to keep
type->length ULONGEST, there should be no regression due to it. We agree that
unsigned type (ULONGEST) is right for type->length.

I meant more all the local variables turned signed->unsigned or
unsigned->signed.

Thanks,
Jan