u32 vs. kernel vs. glibc2

Natarajan Krishnaswami (nxk3@dante.student.cwru.edu)
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:55:53 -0500

Werner Almesberger writes:
> Now, in that header file, I want to express an integer quantity of a given
> size, e.g. an unsigned integer of 32 bits.

> Is u_int32_t "official" in any way ? POSIX 1003.1, 1996 doesn't list it
> or anything similar. Of course it's okay for libc to introduce such an
> identifier (POSIX 1003.1 2.7.2).

This functionality will be defined in the next version of the ISO C
standard, in the header inttypes.h. Since this is an international
standards body, the naming they use cannot be consistent with existing
practices (;) :
[u]?int[_least]?{8,16,32,64}_t.
(e.g., uint32_t or int_least64_t)

My vote would be for using those.

The drafts are available on ftp.dkuug.dk somewhere (I usually just get
there from http://www.lysator.liu.se/c.)

HTH,
N.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu