Re: Use of C99 int types

[Dag Arne Osvik]

Herbert Xu wrote:

> Dag Arne Osvik <da@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
> > > ... and with such name 99% will assume (at least at the first reading)
> > > that it _is_ 32bits.  We have more than enough portability bugs as it
> > > is, no need to invite more by bad names.
> > >      
> > Agreed.  The way I see it there are two reasonable options.  One is to 
> > just use u32, which is always correct but sacrifices speed (at least 
> > with the current gcc).  The other is to introduce C99 types, which Linus 
> > doesn't seem to object to when they are kept away from interfaces 
> > (http://infocenter.guardiandigital.com/archive/linux-kernel/2004/Dec/0117.html).
> >    
>
> There is a third option which has already been pointed out before:
>
> Use unsigned long.
>  

Yes, as Kulewski pointed out, unsigned long is at least 32 bits wide and 
therefore correct.  Whether it's also fastest is less of a concern, but 
it is so for at least the x86* architectures.  So, sure, I'll use it.

Cheers all,

--
 Dag Arne

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/