Lee Jones writes:
>> > Resorted to poaching now have we Pawel?
>
>> I hope you were joking!
>
> Yes, of course. I thought that was clearly indicated by the jovial winking
> smiley. :)
>
> I realise it wasn't obvious soley by this exchange, but Pawel and I are
> actually ol' friends.
>
>> Doing yo
Lee Jones writes:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012, Pawel Moll wrote:
>
>> On 64-bit machines resource_size_t is a 64-bit value, while
>> sscanf() format for this argument was defined as "%u". Fixed
>> by using an intermediate local value of a known length.
>>
>> Also added cleaned up the resource creation
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:44 +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012, Pawel Moll wrote:
> >
> > > On 64-bit machines resource_size_t is a 64-bit value, while
> > > sscanf() format for this argument was defined as "%u". Fixed
> > > by using an interm
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:44 +, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012, Pawel Moll wrote:
>
> > On 64-bit machines resource_size_t is a 64-bit value, while
> > sscanf() format for this argument was defined as "%u". Fixed
> > by using an intermediate local value of a known length.
> >
> > Also
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On 64-bit machines resource_size_t is a 64-bit value, while
> sscanf() format for this argument was defined as "%u". Fixed
> by using an intermediate local value of a known length.
>
> Also added cleaned up the resource creation and adde extra
> comments t
On 64-bit machines resource_size_t is a 64-bit value, while
sscanf() format for this argument was defined as "%u". Fixed
by using an intermediate local value of a known length.
Also added cleaned up the resource creation and adde extra
comments to make the parameters parsing easier to follow.
Rep
6 matches
Mail list logo
