Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:50:00 +0200 | From | Dag Arne Osvik <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |