Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin <at> googlemail.com> writes:
> Declaring a typedef
> that is exactly the same as a builtin type (as opposed to one that has
different
> semantics, even though it is defined in terms of the internal types) is fairly
> silly. "unsigned char" is every bit as hardware agnostic as "uchar_t", it's
> pointless.
Not _entirely_ pointless. There are some things that you can do with one-word
typedefs that you can't do with multi-token primitive types, such as this gem
from gnulib's test-alignof.c:
typedef long double longdouble;
#define CHECK(type) \
typedef struct { char slot1; type slot2; } type##_helper; \
verify (alignof_slot (type) == offsetof (type##_helper, slot2)); \
const int type##_slot_alignment = alignof_slot (type); \
const int type##_type_alignment = alignof_type (type);
> I would suggest you guys just avoid the use of these misbegotten aliases in
> your code...
This statement is still true - portable code should not rely on an unspecified
typedef.
--
Eric Blake
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
