> -----Original Message----- > From: Artem Bityutskiy [mailto:dedeki...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 22:28 PM > To: Timur Tabi > Cc: Zang Roy-R61911; Anton Vorontsov; Wood Scott-B07421; Lan Chunhe-B25806; > linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org; linux-...@lists.infradead.org; a...@linux- > foundation.org; dw...@infradead.org; Gala Kumar-B11780 > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3][MTD] P4080/mtd: Fix the freescale lbc issue with > 36bit mode > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:10 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Zang Roy-R61911 <r61...@freescale.com> > wrote: > > > > > What is the different for unsigned int and u32? I think they are same. > > > > Roy, please don't ever write code that assumes that sizeof(int) == 4. > > There's a reason why we have unsized integer types (like int, long, > > and short) and sized integer types (like u8, u16, u32). If you want > > an integer of a specific size, you should use a sized integer type. > > Yes, sizeof(int) == 4 assumption is not good. > > But sizeof(int) >= 4 is perfectly fine. > > It is OK to rely on the fact that unsigned int is _at least_ 32-bit, not > less. And if you know 32 bits is enough, and you are fine with more, it > is _better_ to avoid u32. Simply because with unsigned int you do not > limit the compiler and CPU and let them use native integers, rather than > strictly 32-bit. This potentially gives the compiler and CPU more room > for optimization. > > I see people use u32 and the friends too much. It is safe and better to > use native types, unless you really have to make the variable to be > strictly u32. > > I did not follow this particular conversation and do not judge which > type is better in this case. I am talking in general. :-)
The function will return fixed 32bit. so u32 should be OK. Thanks. Roy _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
