Data types in samba4
Christopher R. Hertel
crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Thu Jan 15 17:53:29 GMT 2004
I like this idea. I have a few nit-picky questions but they're mostly to
help me understand what you're trying to do.
- why "uint_t" instead of just "uint"? It seems inconsistent with the
rest of the list.
- would these be #defined or typedef'd? (With a #define you can also do
#ifdefs to see if they're already defined.)
- Which of these are consistently defined across the platforms to which we
port? Any? I've had trouble with conflicting definitions in the past,
which is why I ask.
If this gets worked out to a simple, workable set I want to adopt it for
some of my own (non-Samba) coding as well. It would be nice to have a
standard to work toward.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:53:29AM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi tridge,
> while reading through some samba4 code, I noticed
> that we use 'unsigned', 'unsigned int' and 'uint_t'.
> isn't it all the same?
> I think it would be a good idea to use only one off this in all places,
> because this will make us much more independent of system headers.
> so we only need to check if this choosen type is defined, otherwise
> we'll just typedef this *one* type!
> we should write a list to the progguide.txt containing all types
> we're needing in samba and that only this types should be used inside
> of samba.
> I would preferr:
> or something like this.
> and not
> short, long,...
> I'm not sure about the large_t, uint64 or int64 would be better, but we
> can't expect 64-Bit vars on all platforms:-(
> Stefan Metzmacher <metze at samba.org> www.samba.org
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.org
More information about the samba-technical