On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Raphael Kubo da Costa <[email protected]> wrote: > Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hey there, >>> >>> I was working on some code that used devinfo(3). According to devinfo's >>> man page, #including devinfo.h should be enough to use it. However, a >>> program which only #includes devinfo.h fails due to stdint.h (or >>> sys/types.h) not being included, thus giving me some errors about >>> uint32_t and other types not being defined. >>> >>> A few headers in sys/, such as sys/rman.h, have the same problem. >>> >>> Is it a bug in the headers themselves or are the man pages just >>> incorrect? >> >> I'd say it's the manpages probably because a lot of the types were >> changed to POSIX integral types, and the manpages weren't updated. >> Thanks! > > Hmm. In the case of sys/rman.h, I see that commits using uint32_t and > other such types are almost 10 years old.
Older versions of those types were u_int, u_long, etc. Those are the ones that I was referring to in my last reply. > As for devinfo.h, shouldn't it just include stdint.h, sys/types.h or > sys/param.h? sys/types.h should suffice, even though POSIX says it should be in inttypes.h: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/inttypes.h.html#tag_13_20 Kind of odd why they're redefined there (in sys/types.h) to be honest, esp because POSIX doesn't say that they should be defined there. Probably some pollution introduced that would widely break compiles because sys/types.h is used everywhere, not inttypes.h. > What's the best way for me to help with this, PR-wise? I would honestly not go create more PR fodder. Just find a (doc?) developer with a commit bit who's interested in cleaning up incorrectness. Thanks! -Garrett _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
