From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267935AbUGaKGu (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:06:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267934AbUGaKGt (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:06:49 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:64671 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267935AbUGaKGs (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:06:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:06:41 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Eric Anholt Cc: arjanv@redhat.com, Dave Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DRI Subject: Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.. Message-ID: <20040731100641.GA2334@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Eric Anholt , arjanv@redhat.com, Dave Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DRI References: <1091266345.425.34.camel@leguin> <1091267687.2819.3.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <1091267836.425.46.camel@leguin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1091267836.425.46.camel@leguin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 02:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> can you explain why u32 would be outlawed? Surely it's trivial to do a >> typedef for u32 on BSD for drm ?? On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 02:57:17AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > If there are nice standard types (uint32_t or u_int32_t, can't remember > which at the moment, I mentioned it in an email some time ago) out there > already that linux has too, why not use those? uint*_t. ISTR something about Linux' usage predating standard type names for the things. I have much more serious issues with other naming conventions to get worked up about this one. In general I don't mind ones that are less verbose than the standard. -- wli