Description:
------------
When compiling PHP, I get two warnings related to lines 1555 and 1582 of exif.c; both warnings read:

warning: passing arg 3 of `php_addslashes' from incompatible pointer type

Function php_addslashes gets called 4 times in file ext/exif/exif.c (/* $Id: exif.c,v 1.118.2.23 2003/06/25 13:21:54 edink Exp $ */).

In function exif_iif_add_value, where argument 'length' is of type size_t:
   line 1555: info_value->s = php_addslashes(value, length, &length, 0 TSRMLS_CC);
   line 1582: info_value->s = php_addslashes(value, length, &length, 0 TSRMLS_CC);

In function exif_iif_add_str:
    line 1708: info_data->value.s = php_addslashes(value, strlen(value), NULL, 0 TSRMLS_CC);

In function exif_iif_add_buffer, where argument 'length' is of type int:
    line 1756: info_data->value.s = php_addslashes(value, length, &length, 0 TSRMLS_CC);

In ext/standard/string.c, definition of php_addsclashes reads as:

PHPAPI char *php_addslashes(char *str, int length, int *new_length, int should_free TSRMLS_DC)
{
   ...
}

which is consistent with what appears in ext/standard/php_string.h:

PHPAPI char *php_addslashes(char *str, int length, int *new_length, int freeit TSRMLS_DC);

Clearly, line 1708 is a don't care, and line 1756 is just compliant with the definition of php_addslashes.
But lines 1555 and 1582 both use a length of type size_t instead of type int.

I am wondering what the compiler really compiles (as it just warns and goes on).
Could this be a source of confusion (such as an unsigned long being interpreted as a signed one)?

And would it be safe to just change the definition of function exif_iif_add_value so as to set type of argument 'lentgh' to int instead of size_t?