On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 12:20:51PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > > To be pedantic, uint32_t was introduced in the Open Group Base > > > Specifications, Issue 5 (released in 1997, basis for UNIX98). > > > At that point it was defined in <inttypes.h>, which only defined > > > (u)int*_t. > > > > > > As far as when <inttypes.h> was available, it was first shipped in > glibc > > > 2.1 > > > (and prereleases thereof), meaning it was first packaged in Debian 2.1 > > > (slink) on sparc. Slink shipped with kernel 2.0.36. > > > But the names of sized types in the kernel _could_ have been switched > > > over when the standard was released, or rather during any of the > "unstable" > > > series after that; this is not a compiler change but a header change, > > > and the kernel has its own headers. Kernel 2.0 was released in 1996 > > > (before the standard), but 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 were released in 1999, > > > 2001, and 2003. > > > > > > > Glibc is not the only thing, in fact it has not been used much in > embedded, > > and even today, it is mostly for "computing embedded". > > From a header standpoint, uClibc effectively is (an old version of) > glibc. From well after the standard types were added. So this is not > an argument against using them. >
I was not even referring to uClibc, eventually ... > > > The real reason is mentioned in the kernel coding style manual: > > > some people don't like the "new" types. > > > > > > > Tes... for good: "do not fix what is not broken". > > "Do not fix what is not broken" does not apply here. The kernel > headers have ALWAYS been broken for use in userspace. The UAPI effort > has partly fixed this (and is evidence that they _are_ trying to fix > this, albeit poorly). > Just because you have a different personal style, it does not mean it is broken. It has served and made Linux popular for well over a decade and a half. Again, I like the bikeshed pink. > > Rich >
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox