🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <838411052snz@dsl.co.uk>
           bhk@dsl.co.uk "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" wrote:

>Goodness only knows when the error first occurred; presumably the author
>of the test on the ttl expected it to be a signed integer, as did the
>person writing the comment in the typedef.  Perhaps it was even correct
>at one stage, and someone has at some time obtruded the unwanted
>"unsigned" into the typedef.  The reason why I say it will be difficult
>to fix is that there are literally hundreds of variables declared as
>int32s: some of these may be meant to be signed, and some unsigned, and
>the code involving each will have to be examined to determine which is
>which.  I've counted 429 lines in the sources which mention int32, and
>that's without looking at the OS/2 specific files!

Ouch!  I'm facing a similar thing at work - porting from DOS to Win95,
and people have used 'int' freely through the code.  In a lot of cases
this shouldn't matter (16 vs. 32 bit) but there's a lot of
message-passing code which uses structures overlaid onto a byte stream.
Messy...

Thanks for finding that.

Since the code works at the moment, how about replacing all 'int32'
declarations with 'uint32', and then setting that one to the proper
'int32'?  There might still be other bugs caused by this, but doing that
shouldn't make anything worse than it is at present.

.-------------------------------.-------------------------------------.
|    chris@keris.demon.co.uk    |  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  |
`-------------------------------^-------------------------------------'