On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:17:43PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:51:13PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: > > Why advertise uint16_t, are we trying to save memory? I would just do > > them uint32_t... > > While few things are certain in computing, I don't think we are going to > see a 65535 MHz processor any time soon. But sure, uint32_t is fine too.
Why not just "unsigned"? There doesn't seem to be any reason to size it explicitly... -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org