On 8 November 2013 15:07, Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/08/13 07:09, Jordan Justen wrote: >> int64_t? :) > > Heh, yes, I did cringe when I wrote that, but if you check the > bottom-most function, where the assignment happens, > pc_system_flash_init(), it declares the local "size" variable as > int64_t. I've given up on arguing for sensible unsigned types so I just > went with the flow
That's a bug in that function which should be fixed. This is a memory region size and those are uint64_t. That said, having to pass the size of a sub-sub-region all the way back up the call stack is very odd and makes me wonder if it's really the right way to do it... The top level shouldn't have to care like that about details of the bottom of the callstack. thanks -- PMM
