lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Use of C99 int types
Renate Meijer wrote:

>
> On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
>> On Apr 03, 2005, at 16:25, Kenneth Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> But is this not exactly what Dag Arne Osvik was trying to do ??
>>> uint_fast32_t means that we want at least 32 bits but it's OK with
>>> more if that happens to be faster on this particular architecture.
>>> The problem was that the C99 standard types are not defined anywhere
>>> in the kernel headers so they can not be used.
>>
>>
>> Uhh, so what's wrong with "int" or "long"?
>

Nothing, as long as they work as required. And Grzegorz Kulewski
pointed out that unsigned long is required to be at least 32 bits,
fulfilling the present need for a 32-bit or wider type.

>
> My point exactly, though I agree with Kenneth that adding the C99 types
> would be a Good Thing.


If it leads to better code, then indeed it would be. However, Al Viro
disagrees and strongly hints they would lead to worse code.

>
>> GCC will generally do the right thing if you just tell it "int".
>
>
> And if you don't, you imply some special requirement, which, if none
> really exists, is
> misleading.


And in this case there is such a requirement. Anyway, I've already
decided to use unsigned long as a replacement for uint_fast32_t in my
implementation.

--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.123 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site