Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:17:47 +0100 From: Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, David O'Brien <obrien@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: <479DC7EB.5050102@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20080128111434.GA68277@owl.midgard.homeip.net> 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> <20080128111434.GA68277@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:55:29AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav 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. >> Irrelevant. >> >>> 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. >> C99 doesn't define those either. >> >>> 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. >> Both C99 and POSIX *require* int64_t and uint64_t on all platforms that >> have 64-bit integer types. >> >> 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. How about int_least64_t? It's a required type of at least 64bits. I'd like my bikeshed green with yellow dots, please. Regards Christoph
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?479DC7EB.5050102>