On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:47PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:35:15AM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > >On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:46:53AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > >> $ 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. > > My count (using ports/devel/id-utils) says there are 627 references to > int64_t in the tree - half of them in sys. If you extend this to > tokens matching /int[0-9]+_t$/ then those numbers go up to 62958 and > 48559 respectively. > > A more suitable type might be intmax_t - which is also used more > commonly in userland than int64_t.
The range of intmax_t guaranteed by C99 is not greater than that of long long. Intmax_t is there not to store astronomical numbers, but to be able to keep a value from any non-basic integer type, e.g., when one needs to printf(3) an off_t. > >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. > > I would prefer to see the primary driver for FreeBSD code be FreeBSD, > not what other projects may or may not choose to copy from it. In > general, porting code to other systems is going to require more than > a copy-and-paste. Requiring the target system to provide a single, > fairly well-defined standard type does not seem overly onerous. I'd put it the other way around: porting code often is so painful because many people care only about their favourite systems and platforms. -- Yar _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
