Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:14:35 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src UPDATING src/include fts.h src/lib/libc/gen Makefile.inc Symbol.map fts-compat.c fts-compat.h fts.3 fts.c src/sys/sys param.h Message-ID: <20080128111434.GA68277@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <86odb6usm6.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <200801261709.m0QH9f2D024309@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080127043334.GA75235@dragon.NUXI.org> <20080127053813.GH49535@comp.chem.msu.su> <20080127094653.GA74753@dragon.NUXI.org> <20080128053514.GK49535@comp.chem.msu.su> <86odb6usm6.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:55:29AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> writes: > > Excuse me, but did you notice that fts(3) is not a part of sys? It's > > generic userland code, albeit it's contaminated by system-dependent > > parts for performance or whatever. >=20 > Irrelevant. >=20 > > But let intN_t be mostly confined in the kernel and system-dependent > > userland code. E.g., system-dependent include files can use them > > to define more portable types such as ino_t, nlink_t, or whatever. >=20 > C99 doesn't define those either. >=20 > > Userland code should be portable and useful to other systems in the > > chosen domain of compatibility, e.g., C99 or POSIX, unless there > > are substantial reasons for it not to. That's how different projects > > can benefit from each other's work. >=20 > Both C99 and POSIX *require* int64_t and uint64_t on all platforms that > have 64-bit integer types. >=20 > FreeBSD has never run on any platform that doesn't. I don't think > NetBSD or OpenBSD has either, nor Solaris, nor Linux to my knowledge. Those are all good reasons for why using 'int64_t' would be OK. None of it is a reason for why using 'long long' would not be OK when you want at least 64 bits, but do not require exactly 64 bits. --=20 <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080128111434.GA68277>