> OK.
Thanks, committed.
On 06/08/2015 06:58 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
The testcase for pr 66345 assumes size_t is "unsigned long" instead of
using the real type, which causes failures on some 16-bit targets.
Ok?
Also, I note that some tests check for __SIZE_TYPE__ as I do below,
and others use it unconditionally as a re
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:
Also, I note that some tests check for __SIZE_TYPE__ as I do below,
and others use it unconditionally as a replacement for size_t. Is
there a convention?
As far as I can tell, __SIZE_TYPE__ is always defined. The tests that
check for it probably date fro
