On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Kurt Roeckx <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 01:41:07PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Gary E. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yo Eric! > > > > > > > > > > These are valid because the invention and major uses of u_long in > this > > > > codebase predate the 64-bit transition - it may look like we're > > > > narrowing size from 64 to 32 bits, but what we're actually doing > is > > > > replacing an earlier hack for guaranteeing 32-bit size by people > > > > who cut their teeth on 16-bit ints. > > > > > > I disagree with this patch. > > > > > > -extern void authtrust (keyid_t, unsigned long); > > > +extern void authtrust (keyid_t, unsigned int); > > > > > > In C, ints are not guaranteed to be longer than 16 bits. > > > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5256000/integer- > > > size-in-c-depends-on-what#5256195 > > > > > > > > See C99 "5.2.4.2.1 Sizes of integer types" for the normative definition. > > > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf (pg 33 of PDF) > > > > If you have expectations of precise size of integers rather than required > > minimum, you should used the stdint.h types like int32_t and uint64_t. > > Exactly. And if it's just a minimum you could use int_least32_t. > > Agreed. It makes the expectations of the author on the variable's size and expected range much more explicit.
-joel > > Kurt > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
