Attention is currently required from: Edward O'Callaghan. Angel Pons has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/52473 )
Change subject: s25f.c: Fix mismatched function definitions ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(1 comment)
Commit Message:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/flashrom/+/52473/comment/be62f7b2_31eb5a6e PS1, Line 8: : This was missed because `uint32_t` is `unsigned int` in most cases. : However, it is not the case for DJGPP 6.1.0 for some reason.
You got no response for a couple of days because I have been recovering from surgery WTF.. That's why -2'ed to give a pause on this to give me a chance to discuss. I've not actually been at work but been trying to keep up to date so Anastasia and the community can keep moving.
I wasn't aware of that, my apologies.
I cannot see how 'unsigned int' would be preferred over uint32_t, the correct type is clearly uint32_t for the intended case.
Why do you say `uint32_t` is the correct type?
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Integers.html
Fixed-width or exact-width types like `uint32_t` are meant to be used when one needs an integer of exactly N bits. In this case, nothing specifically requires that the parameters be 32 bits wide, so I wouldn't use an exact-width type for them.
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Important-Data-Types.html
At least for `blocklen`, I'd say `size_t` would be a reasonable choice. As per the link above, it may not be compatible with implementations that predate ISO C, but flashrom already uses size_t in other places. In any case, manibuilder is the way to go to assess compatibility.