Thanks. To be honest I would prefer using the standard type, but I also have a much stronger preference for consistency.
Chris. From: Neale Ranns (nranns) [mailto:nra...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:18 PM To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbar...@cisco.com>; Dave Wallace <dwallac...@gmail.com>; Florin Coras <fcoras.li...@gmail.com>; Luke, Chris <chris_l...@cable.comcast.com> Cc: vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] u32 vs uint32_t +1. I’ll patch the uses of uin32_t. /neale From: <vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io>> on behalf of "Dave Barach (dbarach)" <dbar...@cisco.com<mailto:dbar...@cisco.com>> Date: Monday, 11 September 2017 at 18:59 To: Dave Wallace <dwallac...@gmail.com<mailto:dwallac...@gmail.com>>, Florin Coras <fcoras.li...@gmail.com<mailto:fcoras.li...@gmail.com>>, "Luke, Chris" <chris_l...@comcast.com<mailto:chris_l...@comcast.com>> Cc: vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] u32 vs uint32_t +1, let’s stick with u32... Thanks… Dave From: vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io> [mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io] On Behalf Of Dave Wallace Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:36 PM To: Florin Coras <fcoras.li...@gmail.com<mailto:fcoras.li...@gmail.com>>; Luke, Chris <chris_l...@comcast.com<mailto:chris_l...@comcast.com>> Cc: vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>> Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] u32 vs uint32_t +1 On 09/11/2017 11:27 AM, Florin Coras wrote: Hi Chris, Personally, I’d like to enforce the use of u32. Is it an option to just replace all occurrences of uint32_t in ip.h/mpls.h? Thanks, Florin On Sep 11, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Luke, Chris <chris_l...@comcast.com<mailto:chris_l...@comcast.com>> wrote: For discussion: VPP has traditionally used its own fixed-width types, such as u32 and u64 and only uses standard types when referring to the external world (eg, to talk to libc, etc). Recently I’ve noticed the C99 variant, uint32_t creeping in more and into VPP internal matters. As a matter of style and consistency, which should we as a project be using? Reason I ask: The recent MPLS patch (https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/8371) uses both styles in .h files but doesn’t have stdint.h included in any path leading to those .h’s; Coverity appears to be fussy about this – it checks that all types used in a .h are defined in the scope of that .h. Upshot is that Coverity is balking at this and only 54% of the project now compiles under Coverity To resolve the issue with Coverity, I am torn with adding “#include <stdint.h>” to ip.h/mpls.h to fix it where it happens, or just accept that humans are inconsistent and add it to vppinfra/types.h. Thoughts? Chris. _______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev _______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io<mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
