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.
