size_t vs EMACS_INT

[Eli Zaretskii]

Paul,

I think that part of your change in revision 105217 on the trunk, viz.

  -static size_t bidi_cache_size = 0;
  +static EMACS_INT bidi_cache_size = 0;

is not a good idea.  I understand the motivation for using a signed
type, but EMACS_INT isn't just a signed type, it's 3 bits narrower
than size_t, at least on some platforms.  By contrast, the bidi cache
should be able to support the longest Lisp string/buffer, and for that
it needs to have MOST_POSITIVE_FIXNUM _elements_, not bytes.  So the
net effect of the above change is to limit the cache to 1/8th of the
maximum size it could have before the change.  So I think we will have
to use size_t here, and deal with whatever complications that causes
with GCC 4.6.x.