>>> On 26.03.19 at 15:23, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > IMO especially in the CPUID case it is desirable to explicitly specify > the width of the data. Looking at nodes 0x80000002 and following this > should be rather clear (and I even think get_model_name() should be > modified to use a pointer to uint32_t instead of unsigned int). Using > a type with size >= 4 doesn't fit really well. You want size == 4.
Why? Fixed width types only introduce unnecessary restrictions when wanting to re-use code in other environments. And I don't see why CPUID nodes 0x8000000[234] would be any better (or worse) as an example here. If anything they tell us that neither uint32_t nor unsigned int are right, and it should be char[4] or uint8_t[4] instead (depending on whether we want to tie ourselves to CHAR_BIT == 8, which clearly is more restrictive than sizeof(int) >= 4, but otoh is also less likely to get in the way). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
