I think those are just early definitions and nobody paid attention ever since. I think you are right, those should be prefixed also to avoid name space clashes.
The __bitwise definition is needed by sparse tool, but likely the type name can be anything. Maybe something like this: odp_u16le_t, odp_u16be_t, odp_u32le_t, … That’s only 1 char longer that the current names. -Petri From: lng-odp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of EXT Christophe Milard Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 11:40 AM To: LNG ODP Mailman List Subject: [lng-odp] no prefix for usual types? the file: odp/platform/linux-generic/include/odp/plat/byteorder_types.h defines: typedef uint16_t __odp_bitwise uint16le_t; typedef uint16_t __odp_bitwise uint16be_t; typedef uint32_t __odp_bitwise uint32le_t; typedef uint32_t __odp_bitwise uint32be_t; typedef uint64_t __odp_bitwise uint64le_t; typedef uint64_t __odp_bitwise uint64be_t; typedef uint16_t __odp_bitwise uint16sum_t; typedef uint32_t __odp_bitwise uint32sum_t; Why would these type not be 'odp_' prefixed? I am aware that these are very common types, and that these definitions probably match any others but... A strange app may have redefined those to something else... Double definition generate warnings... Any reason I am missing? Christophe.
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
