Christoffer Lerno
Christoffer Lerno
New names: `append_string`, `append_dstring`, `append_bytes`. Using `append_string` for dstrings will work, but is deprecated. Try it out please
Are there any safety issues one should consider here?
I am not super happy about how you can accidentally narrow things today. For the ptr -> int conversion, you can't narrow without an extra step, but I suppose widening...
What about this: ```c3 ulong bitstruct_wide = (ulong)foo_bitstruct; ulong enum_wide = (ulong)foo_enum; ulong inline_enum_wide = foo_inline_enum; ulong const_enum_wide = (ulong)foo_const_enum; ulong const_inline_enum_wide = foo_const_inline_enum; ulong typedef_wide = (ulong)foo_typedef; ulong inline_typedef_wide...
Perhaps. It would be in line with having to do ```c char a = 123; iptr b = 123; void* x = (void*)(iptr)a; void* x = (void*)b; ```
This is already required BTW. Same the other way around, you need to do `(char)(uptr)&foo`. Again, this is to protect from accidentally doing casts that silence errors you didn't expect....
`ulist` `clist`
I'm gravitating towards ctlist. Anyone else who wants to weigh in?
No, this is different. The error you get seems to be due to libc not getting started. So I think it's as simple as the wrong libraries are being linked.