From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6759 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2014 19:21:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 32742 Received: (qmail 25356 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2014 19:20:59 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <140607122058.ZM25045@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 12:20:58 -0700 In-reply-to: <1402161535-20756-2-git-send-email-nikolas@garofil.be> Comments: In reply to Nikolas Garofil "[PATCH 2/6] strict compilers expect the number of bytes to be a size_t for bcopy" (Jun 7, 7:18pm) References: <1402161535-20756-1-git-send-email-nikolas@garofil.be> <1402161535-20756-2-git-send-email-nikolas@garofil.be> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] strict compilers expect the number of bytes to be a size_t for bcopy MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 7, 7:18pm, Nikolas Garofil wrote: } } --- a/Src/prototypes.h } +++ b/Src/prototypes.h } @@ -130,5 +130,5 @@ extern char *strerror _((int errnum)); } /***************************************************/ } } #ifndef HAVE_MEMMOVE } -extern void bcopy _((const void *, void *, int)); } +extern void bcopy _((const void *, void *, size_t)); } #endif } -- Pardon my paranoia, but are we sure that won't itself break somewhere? A strict compiler that doesn't have size_t declared in scope, or that does have bcopy() but it doesn't use size_t for it? Yes, this is probably pretty unlikely nowadays, but obviously you found one that doesn't have memmove() which I would have thought less likely.