On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 11:41:58AM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Fair enough. In the specific implementation of gcc it might be okay. But > that doesn't say anything about clang (but I guess it's okay as well).
Clang tries hard to support whatever gcc does and when I mean gcc I implicitly also mean clang (and very likely icc as well for those who care). > > For this reason I'd like to get the signed-vs-unsigned part merged. > > Feel free to edit around in my patch to remove the bits that change from > something to `int` and leave the adding of the `unsigned` in there. Or > drop my patch, create your own one and add me as Co-authored-by or > Reported-by or whatever. OK so I simply edited your patch. > While doing so please check on the `struct pat_time` I mentioned in my > previous email. Ah yes, good point. I've just checked, I added this in 2007 and never implemented the time range parser. I we managed not to need if for the last 13 years, I think we don't need it and the day we need it we might do it differently, so I'm simply removing that definition. thanks! Willy
