On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 02:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> can you explain why u32 would be outlawed? Surely it's trivial to do a >> typedef for u32 on BSD for drm ??
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 02:57:17AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > If there are nice standard types (uint32_t or u_int32_t, can't remember > which at the moment, I mentioned it in an email some time ago) out there > already that linux has too, why not use those? uint*_t. ISTR something about Linux' usage predating standard type names for the things. I have much more serious issues with other naming conventions to get worked up about this one. In general I don't mind ones that are less verbose than the standard. -- wli ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
