Dag Arne Osvik <[email protected]> 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~} <[email protected]>
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
