samba4: unsigned char -> uint8

[Christopher R. Hertel]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:45:38PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 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
>        program.
> 
> ... 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
>        <stdint.h> header.
> 
> Should probably stick with int and unsigned int...

What about just "uint", since that doesn't end with "_t"?

Chris -)-----

> 
> Anthony Liguori
> 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
> 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).
> 
> 
> Tim.
> 
> 
> #### signature.asc has been removed from this note on June 02, 2004 by 
> Anthony Liguori
> 



-- 
"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