From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: EMACS_INT cleanup Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: <8339t0uthi.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83aan8uvy3.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285271886 14118 80.91.229.12 (23 Sep 2010 19:58:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 23 21:58:05 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyrvN-0006Z0-B3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:58:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50525 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oyrtz-0002uA-ML for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:56:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50669 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oyrth-0002ZV-PV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:56:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyrrE-00024R-Pe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:53:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:34082) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OyrrE-000247-J8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:53:28 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L9700A00TU68R00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:53:27 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.203.3]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L97009H7TX0R560@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:53:25 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130689 Archived-At: > From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen > Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:34:29 +0200 > > Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > > > Lisp_Object > > oblookup (Lisp_Object obarray, register const char *ptr, int size, int size_byte) > > > > The last parameter there is an EMACS_INT. Should I change oblookup to > > take EMACS_INT parameters, in case we want to intern a 2.1GB long > > string? > > I mean, it sounds nonsensical, but 1) it makes it compile without any > other warnings, and 2) if you've said (setq a (buffer-string)) on a big > buffer and then happen to (intern a), you don't want a segfault, do you? I see no harm in having both size and size_byte be EMACS_INT.