On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:55:29AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Yar Tikhiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
