Re: Use of C99 int types

[Renate Meijer <kleuske@xs4all.nl>]

On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:

> 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.

At least a 32 bit integer is guaranteed to stay an 32 bit integer 
(should one be required)
though multiple incarnations of the compiler.

>   However, Al Viro disagrees and strongly hints they would lead to 
> worse code.

When used improperly. The #define Al Viro objected to, is 
objectionable. It's highly
misleading, as Mr. Viro pointed out. I fail to see where he made 
comments on stdint.h
as such.

>> 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.

Apart from the integer having 32 bits?

>   Anyway, I've already decided to use unsigned long as a replacement 
> for uint_fast32_t in my implementation.

Ok. I can live with that.

Regards,

Renate Meijer.