Re: SPAM[RBL] Re: C99 types VS Linus types

From: Vojtech Pavlik (vojtech@suse.cz)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 13:08:51 EST

Next message: Chris Mason: "Re: 2.4.22-pre3 and reiserfs boot problem"
Previous message: Jan Dittmer: "Re: Unable to handle NULL point when doing lsof"
In reply to: Bernardo Innocenti: "Re: SPAM[RBL] Re: C99 types VS Linus types"
Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: SPAM[RBL] Re: C99 types VS Linus types"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:37:26PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:

> On Sunday 06 July 2003 14:23, Philippe Elie wrote:
>
> > alpha user space .h define uint64_t as unsigned long,
> > include/asm-alpha/types.h defines it as unsigned long long.
>
> Why is that? Isn't uint64_t supposed to be _always_ a 64bit
> unsigned integer? Either the kernel or the user space might
> be doing the wrong thing...
>
> I've Cc'd the Alpha mantainer to make him aware of this
> problem.

I suppose both an 'unsigned long' and 'unsigned long long' are 64-bit
entities on the Alpha (which is a 64-bit architecture).

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Chris Mason: "Re: 2.4.22-pre3 and reiserfs boot problem"
Previous message: Jan Dittmer: "Re: Unable to handle NULL point when doing lsof"
In reply to: Bernardo Innocenti: "Re: SPAM[RBL] Re: C99 types VS Linus types"
Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: SPAM[RBL] Re: C99 types VS Linus types"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:00:27 EST