Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again

[Eric Blake]

On 10/31/2014 01:50 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 11:07 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> So there are my reasons for leaving obstack_blank as is.
> 
> Thanks, they're persuasive.  With that in mind, I have a minor complaint
> about obstack_blank_fast's revised documentation.  It says "You can use
> @code{obstack_blank_fast} with a negative size argument to make the
> current object smaller."  Technically, though, the argument is of type
> size_t so it cannot be negative.  So, how about if we change this
> wording to "If @var{S} is a positive size, you can give
> @code{obstack_blank_fast} a ``negated'' (actually, large positive) size
> @address@hidden to shrink the current object by @var{S} bytes."  Also,
> it may be worth noting explicitly that this trick does not work for
> object_blank.

Can we use ssize_t instead of size_t for obstack_blank_fast?

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature