On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:14:38AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Guillem Jover <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 16:56:52 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 09:09:01PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> > diff --git a/include/input.h b/include/input.h > >> > index afcc006..8ad50cb 100644 > >> > --- a/include/input.h > >> > +++ b/include/input.h > >> > @@ -210,6 +210,20 @@ typedef struct _InputOption { > >> > struct _InputOption *next; > >> > } InputOption; > >> > > >> > +typedef struct _InputAttributes { > >> > + char *product; > >> > + char *vendor; > >> > + char *device; > >> > + int flags; > >> > >> unsigned long maybe? i wouldn't be suprised if a whole bunch of these flags > >> are added in the future. > > > > long is going to also be 32-bit on 32-bit architectures, if you want a > > 64-bit type then probably better to make it explicitly so with a type > > from <stdin.h>? > > Forgot about this part. What's the consensus here? I would doubt we'd > ever use more than 32 bits. Is uin32_t OK, or do we want to be > extremely futureproof with uint64_t?
make the flags unsigned int or uint32_t and I'll be happy. I'd prefer the unsigned, just for correctness. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
