Hi,
> >> No it wouldn't, on some architectures it is safe to do
> >> safe_flags() on a short type, like a short which can then be used
> >> in the architecture specific code.
>
> Cesar> Then the typedef could be architeture-specific. Or you could
> Cesar> use two typedefs.
>
> No it shouldn't, when using it in data structures you want it as is as
> unsigned long for proper alignment of data.
If that flag ends up in a structure, it's a bug.
> Wrong, a lot of people keep thinking lets add yet another 500
> typedef's but they don't buy you anything except complexity and
> confusion. You can still play games directly on the original data
> type.
What is complex about a typedef? It can increase readability, it makes
clear for what that variable has to used for and it clearly tells that
its value has to considered private.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:13 EST