On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:42:07AM +1000, matthew green 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... > > for user/kernel APIs we try to use fixed-sized types and structures > so that 32/64 bit compat issues are elided.
...and "unsigned" is the same in both ILP32 and LP64 worlds :-) I mean, I see the point, but it seems like overkill. If that periodically-threatened pdp10 port (or some other off-size port) ever appears, it's not likely to care about the size that appears in some other environment (unlike for on-disk structures) and using an explicit size will if anything make life more complicated. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org