Re: Use of C99 int types

[Dag Arne Osvik <da@osvik.no>]

Herbert Xu wrote:

>Dag Arne Osvik <da@osvik.no> wrote:
>  
>
>>>... and with such name 99% will assume (at least at the first reading)
>>>that it _is_ 32bits.  We have more than enough portability bugs as it
>>>is, no need to invite more by bad names.
>>>      
>>>
>>Agreed.  The way I see it there are two reasonable options.  One is to 
>>just use u32, which is always correct but sacrifices speed (at least 
>>with the current gcc).  The other is to introduce C99 types, which Linus 
>>doesn't seem to object to when they are kept away from interfaces 
>>(http://infocenter.guardiandigital.com/archive/linux-kernel/2004/Dec/0117.html).
>>    
>>
>
>There is a third option which has already been pointed out before:
>
>Use unsigned long.
>  
>

Yes, as Kulewski pointed out, unsigned long is at least 32 bits wide and 
therefore correct.  Whether it's also fastest is less of a concern, but 
it is so for at least the x86* architectures.  So, sure, I'll use it.

Cheers all,

-- 
  Dag Arne