Re: [PATCH] Improve mutt's random data generator.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 01:30:45AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev wrote:
>I would prefer not passing NONBLOCK at all.  Not failing and not adding
>extra code.

I think the check for EINTR and res < length_requested are required 
anyway.

>> So I thought the cast comparing to -1 was worth the clarity trade off below.
>>
>> But if in fact the code would be fine I'll convert to ssign_t.
>
>You may also need to update the type of 'length_requested', to prevent
>mixing signed and unsigned types, which will rightfully give warnings.

I don't think I want to do that.  I'll take a closer look at the code, 
but I believe some parts rely on length_requested always being positive.

>I think it may be easier to just remove the casts.

I'll play with ssize_t then.

Thank you.

-- 
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=58YP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----