On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:54, Greg KH wrote: > If the structure is going to be exported from the kernel, then __u16 and > __u32 should be used, as they are the proper types for this. These > types are portable accross all platforms. They are not portable outside Linux. This is inappropriate in what needs to become a _standardised_ interface.
My source: http://www.xml.com/ldd/chapter/book/ch10.html#t2 which states (on the _ _ types ): <quote> It's important to remember that these types are Linux specific, and using them hinders porting software to other Unix flavors. Systems with recent compilers will support the C99-standard types, such as uint8_t and uint32_t; when possible, those types should be used in favor of the Linux-specific variety. </quote> I do not disagree that the _t notation is ugly. However it is at least standard in availability on modern operating systems, and has unambiguous meaning. The double underscore notation (which is also pretty ugly) is neither standard nor unambiguous. In particular, it is ambiguous because __ on an identifier normally means "this is the internal version, you shouldn't normally use this". As Dave pointed out, it would be nice if we could use the "in kernel" u32 and s16 stype notation in user spacce. Bute we can't, so using <stdint.h> is the next best option. Brad _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
