[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Integer types
    On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 11:55 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
    > > * u8, u16, ...
    > > * uint8_t, uint16_t, ...
    > > * u_int8_t, t_int16_t, ...
    > From the above list, the first ones. See
    > Please note that
    > there's also __le32 and __be32 for variables that have fixed byte
    > ordering.

    As ever, however, be aware that our esteemed leader is fickle.
    Especially when he's wrong, as he was on that occasion.

    The bit about namespace pollution is a red herring -- that's a good
    enough reason for using '__u8', '__u16' etc. in those headers which are
    user-visible and which mustn't require standard types, but it's no
    excuse for the existence of the 'u8', 'u16' forms in code and headers
    which _aren't_ user-visible.

    The reason for the existence of the 'uXX' form is because once upon a
    time, the kernel was buildable with compilers which predated the C99
    standard types. It remains for historical reasons and because some
    people (especially Linus) have some kind of emotional attachment to it.

    The choice of whether to use 'uXX' or to use the proper standard
    'uintXX_t' types is to a large extent a matter of the individual
    developer's taste. If you're writing large chunks of your own code, then
    do as you see fit; if you're modifying existing code, then use what's
    there already.


    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: 2005-12-31 16:52    [W:0.020 / U:5.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site