[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] Input cleanups for 2.5.29 [2/2]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
> Here is an extract from <linux/types.h>
> typedef __u8 uint8_t;
> typedef __u16 uint16_t;

Yes, and the thing you snipped from it was that it's inside a #ifdef.

Now, that #ifdef will be on for the __KERNEL__, but somebody else might
have compiled with some -traditional switch or other that disabled
"uint8_t" or just screwed it up some other way.

> > ICBW, but wasn't uint<n>_t only promised to be at least <n> bits?
> I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

I think the point Viro is making is that uint8_t actually exists on things
like old cray's too, even if end sup being a 64-bit entity.

I don't think that is correct, though. I think that comes from another
(proposed but not implemented) C language extension that would have
allowed something like that, namely the

int X:17;

syntax, where X would be guaranteed to be "17 bits or more". I don't


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.072 / U:3.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site