Erik Trulsson wrote:
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.
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
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
