Re: u_int32_t vs uint32_t

So what about just using CARD32 as the rest of the X code does to define
this portably?

	-alan-

Torrey Lyons wrote:
> uint32_t might be preferred, but that does not mean it is defined in 
> <sys/types.h> on all platforms. On Darwin one needs to use <stdint.h> or 
> <inttypes.h> as suggested in the Solaris 10 documentation. In any case, 
> <sys/types.h> is definitely not the right cross platform header file and 
> causes build breakage.
> 
> --Torrey
> 
> At 10:04 AM -0700 8/23/04, Stuart Kreitman wrote:
> 
>> Here is a reference to the C99 standard that uint32_t is preferred:
>>
>>
>> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2003/10/07/michael_barr.html
>>
>>
>> With that I'm putting back the update to Wraphelp.c
>>
>> skk
>> Matthieu Herrb wrote:
>>
>>> Stuart Kreitman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matthieu:
>>>> The editor "fgsch" made the change to u_int32_t in OpenBSD sources
>>>> in April 2002 with your review.  Jim Gettys picked it up this weekend
>>>> for the X.ORG next release.
>>>>
>>>> We need to explain how the typedefs "u_int32_t" vs "uint32_t" 
>>>> conform to various
>>>> standards in ANSI or ISO.  I do not have access to the OpenBSD 
>>>> files, but include
>>>> the relevent statements from Solaris:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> the u_ variants are the traditional types used on BSD systems and 
>>> defined by including <sys/types.h>.
>>>
>>> There is some (limited) previous art of using the u_ types in the X 
>>> tree, that's why it looked right to me.
>>>
>>> Defining a fixed width type in a portable manner can be tricky.
>>> I'd suggest include the relevant X header and use CARD32 instead of 
>>> u_int32_t / uint32_t. (Even though CARD32 is normally reserved for 
>>> the on the wire protocol iirc).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> release-wranglers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/release-wranglers


-- 
	-Alan Coopersmith-           [email protected]
	 Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering