Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:42:12 +0200 | From | Dag Arne Osvik <> | Subject | Re: Use of C99 int types |
| |
Herbert Xu wrote:
>Dag Arne Osvik <da@osvik.no> 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. > >
Yes, as Kulewski pointed out, unsigned long is at least 32 bits wide and therefore correct. Whether it's also fastest is less of a concern, but it is so for at least the x86* architectures. So, sure, I'll use it.
Cheers all,
-- Dag Arne
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |