Hi Simon, On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: >>>> Dear Simon Glass, >>>> >>>> In message <1349910781-32088-2-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you wrote: >>>>> This is a ulong for some architectures and just unsigned for others. >>>>> Change x86 to be consistent. >>>> >>>> Given the limited range for this variable it makes no sense to use a >>>> long for this. Please fix this the other way round, i. e. change the >>>> architectures that use a long. >>> >>> OK I will send out a series that changes them to unsigned long. >> >> Should we just change them all to u32 to be clear on the value range? > > Sorry, I meant unsigned int. > > Are there architectures in U-Boot which use a 16-bit int?
The C standard does not guarantee unsigned int will be at least 32-bits. It is possible (although I have not checked it) that compiling 'real-mode' x86 code can produce 16-bit ints (not that we do that in U-Boot) using u32 will always guarantee a 32-bit unsigned value - better to be safe than sorry Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
