From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Robert P. J. Day" Subject: Re: the rationale for redefining integral types? Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 08:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <6a00c8d505080305045ad09980@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6a00c8d505080305045ad09980@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-c-programming-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Steve Graegert Cc: C programming list On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Steve Graegert wrote: > On 8/3/05, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > in this legacy code, one of the previous authors took it upon > > himself to redefine some of the basic integral types, such as > > int8, int16, int32 ... that sort of thing. > > Sounds weird, indeed, but I suspect the code to be pre-POSIX (before > 1989). nope, the code is at most 4 years old. > > there doesn't appear to be any benefit to these internally > > redefined types over the ones in the standard library, so i can't > > see why it would have been done. > > The only reason I could think of is that the developer wanted to > introduce some kind of portability by masking underlying types (and > probably their size) transparently. Is this particular piece of > code part of a library? Do the headers contain some #ifdefs to > allow conditional compilation for certain systems? nope and nope. i'm just going to assume i can replace it with standard C types. if something breaks, well, then i'll have my answer, i guess. thanks. rday