Re: C99 types VS Linus types

[Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>]

Vojtech Pavlik writes:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:37:26PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
>> On Sunday 06 July 2003 14:23, Philippe Elie wrote:

>>> alpha user space .h define uint64_t as unsigned long,
>>> include/asm-alpha/types.h defines it as unsigned long long.
>>
>> Why is that? Isn't uint64_t supposed to be _always_ a 64bit
>> unsigned integer? Either the kernel or the user space might
>> be doing the wrong thing...
>>
>>  I've Cc'd the Alpha mantainer to make him aware of this
>> problem.
>
> I suppose both an 'unsigned long' and 'unsigned long long'
> are 64-bit entities on the Alpha (which is a 64-bit
> architecture).

Sure, both are "correct", but there would be a lot less
pain and suffering in the world if "unsigned long long"
would be used for 64-bit. It ought to be at least 40 years
before 128-bit types begin to matter. In the Linux world,
we can consider "long long" to be 64-bit, "int" to be
32-bit, and "long" to be the same size as a pointer.

Then we can ditch the nasty casts:
sprintf(foo, "%llu", (unsigned long long)bar);

This leaves only Win64, Win16, DOS, and ELKS out in
the cold. Like we should care for kernel & glibc!