Data types in samba4

Tim Potter tpot at
Fri Jan 16 01:27:37 GMT 2004

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:48:33AM +1030, tridge at wrote:

>  > I would preferr:
>  > int
>  > int8
>  > int16
>  > int32
>  > int64
>  > uint_t
>  > uint8
>  > uint16
>  > uint32
>  > uint64
> yes, I'd be happy with that. 
> Alternatively we could standardise on *_t naming, as that allows
> syntax highlighting editors (such as emacs) to do a better job. So we
> would have uint32_t, uint64_t etc. 
> Anyone else have any preference?

How about the C99 types intN_t and uintN_t where N is 8,16,32,64(?).
Use configure to declare typedefs for compilers that aren't C99.

Let's not make up our own differently named integer types when the
C99 people have done it for us!  This will also reduce conflicts with
other packages that define their own similarly named integer types.

Interesting factoid: C99 also defines types like uint_leastN_t which
is the data type is guaranteed to have a width of at least N.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list