samba4: unsigned char -> uint8
aliguor at us.ibm.com
Wed Jun 2 19:45:38 GMT 2004
Using uint_t and int_t may be a bad idea. The C99 standard specifically
reverses the right to introduce new types that begin with int or uint and
end with _t. There's no guarentee that their definition would be the same
as ours either and that could produce compatibility problems moving
forward. Currently int_t and uint_t are not defined in C99. Here's the
relevant text from the standard:
7.26 Future library directions
[#1] The following names are grouped under individual
headers for convenience. All external names described below
are reserved no matter what headers are included by the
... a little further down ...
7.26.8 Integer types <stdint.h>
[#1] Type names beginning with int or uint and ending with
_t may be added to the types defined in the <stdint.h>
header. Macro names beginning with INT or UINT and ending
with _MAX or _MIN, may be added to the macros defined in the
Should probably stick with int and unsigned int...
Linux/Active Directory Interoperability
Linux Technology Center (LTC) - IBM Austin
E-mail: aliguor at us.ibm.com
Phone: (512) 838-1208
Tie Line: 678-1208
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
> 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).
#### signature.asc has been removed from this note on June 02, 2004 by
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20040602/8594caaa/signature.obj
More information about the samba-technical