samba4: unsigned char -> uint8

Tim Potter tpot at
Tue Jun 1 22:29:37 GMT 2004

On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 10:29:39AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:

> >  > any objections when I convert 'unsigned char' to uint8
> >  > in samba4
> >  > 
> >  > and 'unsigned' and 'unsigned int' to uint_t.
> > 
> > That's OK with me.
> Lets just make sure we don't take it too far - I don't want to see all
> our string becoming 'int8 *' ;-)

Agreed.  For example there is a big difference between signed and 
unsigned char in some situations.  I think there is a bit of a precedent
for keeping char * and unsigned char * as they are a C idiom for working
with strings.

> Personally, I don't see the point in the short names for 'unsigned
> int'.  I understand the need for explicit 64 bit names in particular
> (where various compilers call it a different thing) but what exactly was
> wrong with 'unsigned int'?

Again, I think it's a bit of a C idiom to use int and unsigned int for
general use unless there is a pressing reason to use a fixed-width type
(e.g marshalling/unmarshalling from the wire or working with quantities 
that have been taken from the wire).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list