[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:0.027 / U:3.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site