Re: Use of C99 int types

[Herbert Xu]

Dag Arne Osvik <da@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>... and with such name 99% will assume (at least at the first reading)
>>that it _is_ 32bits.  We have more than enough portability bugs as it
>>is, no need to invite more by bad names.
> 
> Agreed.  The way I see it there are two reasonable options.  One is to 
> just use u32, which is always correct but sacrifices speed (at least 
> with the current gcc).  The other is to introduce C99 types, which Linus 
> doesn't seem to object to when they are kept away from interfaces 
> (http://infocenter.guardiandigital.com/archive/linux-kernel/2004/Dec/0117.html).

There is a third option which has already been pointed out before:

Use unsigned long.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/