Re: Use of C99 int types

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

Renate Meijer wrote:

>
> On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>
>> On Apr 03, 2005, at 16:25, Kenneth Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> But is this not exactly what Dag Arne Osvik was trying to do ??
>>> uint_fast32_t means that we want at least 32 bits but it's OK with
>>> more if that happens to be faster on this particular architecture.
>>> The problem was that the C99 standard types are not defined anywhere
>>> in the kernel headers so they can not be used.
>>
>>
>> Uhh, so what's wrong with "int" or "long"?
>

Nothing, as long as they work as required.  And Grzegorz Kulewski 
pointed out that unsigned long is required to be at least 32 bits, 
fulfilling the present need for a 32-bit or wider type.

>
> My point exactly, though I agree with Kenneth that adding the C99 types
> would be a Good Thing.


If it leads to better code, then indeed it would be.  However, Al Viro 
disagrees and strongly hints they would lead to worse code.

>
>> GCC will generally do the right thing if you just tell it "int".
>
>
> And if you don't, you imply some special requirement, which, if none 
> really exists, is
> misleading.


And in this case there is such a requirement.  Anyway, I've already 
decided to use unsigned long as a replacement for uint_fast32_t in my 
implementation.

-- 
  Dag Arne