Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:17:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: "Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@ixsystems.com>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/security/audit audit_arg.c Message-ID: <20060204141631.K31814@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <200602032350.k13NoQ1c047653@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060203155613.J41267@knight.iXsystems.com> <200602040111.12261.max@love2party.net> <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-1044562832-1139062670=:31814 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Max Laier <max@love2party.net> writes: >> As this is somewhat vendor code, I think u_int64_t is okay. > > On the contrary; u_int*_t is an old BSDism (which we accept for historica= l=20 > reasons), while uint64_t is the correct C99 syntax. The vendor in this case is/uses an old BSD (Darwin). Which isn't to say it= =20 shouldn't be updated, but is actually the case. Recent Darwin releases=20 properly support the newer type names, but older versions don't. Since we'= re=20 primarily interested in compatibility with recent Darwin, it makes sense to= =20 update once we've finished the merge. Robert N M Watson --0-1044562832-1139062670=:31814--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060204141631.K31814>