Paul Eggert wrote:
> If we're
> going to have a macro that stands for PTRDIFF_WIDTH - 1 it'd probably be
> better to use a different naming convention, to avoid that confusion.
Makes sense. Yes, IDX_VALUE_BITS would be a better name than IDX_WIDTH.
Bruno
On 12/6/20 3:32 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Paul Eggert wrote:
Those all look good to me.
OK, I pushed them.
When I looked into this a bit more when hacking on canonicalize-lgpl, I
realized I spoke too soon. First, there's some cruft left over from when
idx_t could be unsigned. More important,
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Those all look good to me.
OK, I pushed them.
Bruno
Those all look good to me.
Here are a couple of proposed patches, to make use of idx_t instead of ptrdiff_t
when the value is always nonnegative. This helps understanding the code.
2020-12-05 Bruno Haible
filenamecat-tests: Use idx_t for nonnegative ptrdiff_t variables.
* tests/test-filenamecat.c: Inclu
