On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:11 PM, mrnuke <[email protected]> wrote: > <rant> > stdint types are ugly as hell. That "_t" at the end is a pain in the ass to > type, every day of the week. They're too freaking long for a variable type. A > real pain. There is still widespread lack of adoption and FUD towards these > types. I'm willing to bet that, had they been named properly, like uint32 (not > a typo, there is no "_t"), the adoption would not be an issue. > </rant> > > We normally use supershort in types in coreboot (u32). I am, of course, > ignoring the legacy legacy types such as unsigned long, which have sadly > persisted in coreboot source from the very early days. Personally, I'm a fan > of u32 short types, and I really enjoy working with them. However, recent > contributions to other projects have forced me to suck it up and deal with > their stdint evil sisters. > > To the real point: We have lots of recent contributions from google, which use > stdint types. They're compatible with our old short types because, well, > they're typedef'd from the same thing. The problem however, is that it creates > more inconsistency within our tree. As a result, I propose we make stdint > types mandatory, and deprecate shortname types. People don't want to learn a > separate set of data types for every project to which they contribute. stdint > types solve this problem by being standardized. I am far from liking this > change, but it just makes sense. > > So, can we get votes of approval? I can add this info to the Coding Guidelines > if there is enough support. Hopefully, we'll be able to migrate to stdint > entirely, and drop shorties.
In case anyone cares as to why I started using them is that I like to hijack bits of code and compile it for userspace when testing and/or developing new code. It makes that transition easier. Yes, I understand some sort of wrapper needs to be created sometimes, but if the code has include <stdint.h> there isn't much more than providing the other coreboot-specific structs. Yes, it could be argued one way or another but for strictly library/common code it's pretty easy to run on one's desktop. -Aaron -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
