GRUB integral types? Why grub_uint32_t and not uint32_t?

GRUB integral types? Why grub_uint32_t and not uint32_t?

[Colin D Bennett]

I was wondering why it is necessary to use the integral types with
the "grub_" prefix instead of the standard uint32_t, int16_t, etc.?

It makes the most simple code much more verbose when we have to write
"grub_" so many times, and this seems like a case where it is not
needed.

Colin

Re: GRUB integral types? Why grub_uint32_t and not uint32_t?

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 08:57:56AM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> I was wondering why it is necessary to use the integral types with
> the "grub_" prefix instead of the standard uint32_t, int16_t, etc.?
> 
> It makes the most simple code much more verbose when we have to write
> "grub_" so many times, and this seems like a case where it is not
> needed.

It makes our code more consistent and less prone to errors.  This is more
relevant for freestanding code like GRUB than it'd be for a user program.

For an example, you can check the list archives and find how system headers
in different OSes break GRUB in different interesting and fun ways ;-)

-- 
Robert Millan

<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)