Re: Use of C99 int types

[Dag Arne Osvik]

Renate Meijer wrote:

> On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
> > On Apr 03, 2005, at 16:25, Kenneth Johansson wrote:
> >
> > > But is this not exactly what Dag Arne Osvik was trying to do ??
> > > uint_fast32_t means that we want at least 32 bits but it's OK with
> > > more if that happens to be faster on this particular architecture.
> > > The problem was that the C99 standard types are not defined anywhere
> > > in the kernel headers so they can not be used.
> >
> >
> > Uhh, so what's wrong with "int" or "long"?

Nothing, as long as they work as required.  And Grzegorz Kulewski 
pointed out that unsigned long is required to be at least 32 bits, 
fulfilling the present need for a 32-bit or wider type.

> My point exactly, though I agree with Kenneth that adding the C99 types
> would be a Good Thing.


If it leads to better code, then indeed it would be.  However, Al Viro 
disagrees and strongly hints they would lead to worse code.

> > GCC will generally do the right thing if you just tell it "int".
>
>
> And if you don't, you imply some special requirement, which, if none 
> really exists, is
> misleading.


And in this case there is such a requirement.  Anyway, I've already 
decided to use unsigned long as a replacement for uint_fast32_t in my 
implementation.

--
 Dag Arne

-
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/