On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 20:40, Philip Guenther wrote:

>> There won't be any side effects from using __uint64_t, but I think of it
>> more like a building block for another type. Not to be used directly.
> Disagree.  Indeed, I just committed James's diff (plus one additional
> change to CMSG_DATA()).

My (admittedly weak) rationale is that if a struct contains a field, I would
like to be able to declare local variables of the same type as that field.
And I don't want my local variables in my code to be using __int types.

Reply via email to