On 15.03.2024 13:17, George Dunlap wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:57 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>> It sounds like Andy and Stefano feel like this is a situation where "a >>> fixed width quantity is meant"; absent any further guidance from the >>> CODING_STYLE about when fixed widths should or should not be used, I >>> don't think this change would be a violation of CODING_STYLE. >> >> As with any not sufficiently clear statement, that's certainly true here, >> too. Yet if we try to give as wide meaning as possible to "a fixed width >> quantity is meant", there's basically no restriction on use of fixed width >> types because everyone can just say "but I mean a fixed width quantity >> here". I think the earlier sentence needs taking with higher priority, >> i.e. if a basic type does for the purpose, that's what should be used. The >> 2nd sentence then only tries to further clarify what the 1st means. > > Come, now. There are lots of situations where we just need some sort > of number, and there's no real need to worry about the exact size. > There are other situations, where we mean "whatever covers the whole > address space" or the like, where it makes sense to have something > like "unsigned long", which changes size, but in predictable and > useful ways. There are other situations, like when talking over an > API to code which may be compiled by a different compiler, or may be > running in a different processor mode, where we want to be more > specific, and set an exact number of bits. > > Should we use uint32_t for random loop variables? Pretty clearly > "No". Should we use uint32_t for the C entry of a hypercall, even > though the assembly code allegedly makes that unnecessary? At least > two core maintainers think "maybe just to be safe". That's hardly a > slippery slope of "anyone can say anything". > > Other than "it's in CODING_STYLE", and "it's not really necessary > because it's ensured in the assembly code", you haven't advanced a > single reason why "uint32_t" is problematic.
And it isn't, I never said it would be. But if we set rules for ourselves, why would we take the first opportunity to not respect them? Jan
