On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >I haven't looked at the ZFS code but this sort of thing is exactly why > >all code I write uses int8_t, int16_t, int32_t, uint8_t, ... even when > >the first thing I have to do with a new compiler is to work out the > >proper typedefs to create them. > > int, short and char are portable, only other things must be defined this > way.
No, they are not portable. "int" is 16 bits on many systems I work with. char is sometimes signed, sometimes not. uint8_t is never signed and always unambiguous. > int8_t int16_t is just unneeded work. anyway - it's just defines, having > no effect on compiled code and it's performance. No, they are not "just defines", I said "typedef". Typedef is subject to stricter checking by the compiler. Packing and alignment in structs is a big portability problem. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dke...@hiwaay.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"