>>> On 19.02.18 at 14:39, <ian.jack...@citrix.com> wrote: > Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH RFC] CODING_STYLE: document intended usage of > types"): >> Types to be used for addresses - from a really generic pov - >> depend on the architecture. Iirc there are some where a signed >> type is the more natural representation, while on x86 and ARM >> we'd certainly use "unsigned long". Since guests may be of >> different bitness, specifying what type to use for their addresses >> would go too far anyway imo. > > If the underlying C type depends on the architecture, then the code > should use a suitable typedef. In generic code this means that the > code is portable and correct; in arch-specific code it means it's > consistent with the generic code.
Well, for the specific example there is uintptr_t, but the Linux world appears to dislike it (and we're sort of following suit). Hence for the foreseeable future it'll continue to be unsigned long. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xenfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel