On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:05:55PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/27/2012 10:44 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>
The __LINE__ macro value is specified to fit in the size_t
Not quite accurate. C99 merely says:
6.10.4 p3: ... a line number as specified by the digit sequence (interpreted as a decimal integer). The digit sequence shall not specify zero, nor a number greater than 2147483647.
6.10.8 p1: _ _LINE_ _ The presumed line number (within the current source file) of the current source line (an integer constant).
So in fact, __LINE__ is guaranteed to fit within a 32-bit signed integer, and you could s/size_t/int/ with no loss in functionality since we don't port to 16-bit 'int' platforms. That said, I'm not too fussed with things; size_t is definitely better than 'long long', so I'm okay even if you don't further relax to 'int'.
Based on discussion in the later patches, I'm happy to change this to just 'int'. Still surprised it wasn't actually size_t in the standard, but oh well. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|