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

Siddhesh Poyarekar
2012-05-16T07:41:39Z

On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:19:11 +0200, Jan wrote:
> 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.

Ah ok, I misread that. I'll watch out for that.

Thanks,
Siddhesh