On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:38:13AM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 08:33:34PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 05:09:41PM +0000, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> > > o For things that should be at least 64 bits wide, use long long
> > > and not int64_t, as the latter is an optional type.
> >
> > I don't follow - int64_t is an ISO-C99 type, and we have it in FreeBSD.
> > Is this code expected to be taken from FreeBSD and used in some pre-C99
> > system?
>
> C99 explicitly says that any intN_t is an optional type[0]. E.g.,
> a 96-bit system may choose not to provide int64_t if none of its
> basic C types is 64 bits wide.
I think this is a quite silly argument.
$ find /usr/src/sys -name \*.[ch] -a -type f \
| xargs grep int[0-9][0-9]_t | wc -l
37026
I think that shows we can depend on int64_t existing and usable.
> fts(3) is a purely userland library which need not depend on a
> particular platform[1], so I did my best to avoid any assumptions like,
> `There will never be a 96-bit system around.'
This is FreeBSD - not a magazine on C programming, in which examples
should be usable on all platforms. Given the use of intN_t in the
kernel, we already cannot boot on this future platform
Please don't un-C99 the system that folks have worked to update us to.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
