On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
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.
At least a 32 bit integer is guaranteed to stay an 32 bit integer
(should one be required)
though multiple incarnations of the compiler.
However, Al Viro disagrees and strongly hints they would lead to
worse code.
When used improperly. The #define Al Viro objected to, is
objectionable. It's highly
misleading, as Mr. Viro pointed out. I fail to see where he made
comments on stdint.h
as such.
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.
Apart from the integer having 32 bits?
Anyway, I've already decided to use unsigned long as a replacement
for uint_fast32_t in my implementation.
Ok. I can live with that.
Regards,
Renate Meijer.
-
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]
