Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 May 2006 12:07:21 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: add typedefs chapter |
| |
On Tue, 2 May 2006, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 11:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The problem with uint32_t is that it's ugly, it used to be unportable, and > > you can't use it in header files _anyway_. > > Unportable? It's at least as portable as u32 is, surely? We probably > wouldn't have used <stdint.h> in the kernel anyway -- we define them > ourselves.
When the u<n> things were done, uint<n>_t wasn't at all common.
> The header files are completely irrelevant too -- we're talking about > 'u32' not '__u32'.
That's not irrelevant. Usually you want to have stuff in header files that you use in source code. You want the two to visually look similar. It's a hell of a lot less confusing to use "u32" (in source) and "__u32" (in the header file), than it is to mix "uint32_t" (in source) and some random other thing (in header file).
> The important thing is your belief that it's ugly, which is what was > documented.
And that wasn't what I objected to.
What I objected to was that other part, which said that "uint32_t" was somehow more standard.
IN THE KERNEL IT IS _LESS_ STANDARD.
And outside the kernel, that documentation is not exactly relevant.
Linus - 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/
| |