Dave Gotwisner wrote:
I personally hate the proliferation of typedefs. I have seen u8, U8, u_int8, uint8, and many others that all express the same thing. (similarly for 16, 32, and 64 bit sizes).
The lack of a common standard is the problem, IMO, not the existence of typedefs per se. The underlying problem is that C doesn't provide any built-in portable way of saying you want a data type exactly THIS big, short of resorting to structs with bit-counted fields. None of the built-in types are required to be a particular size, even if they happen to have settled down on particular sizes on present-day architectures. I would much rather waste one line of header file somewhere doing a seemingly redundant typedef than have my code break on some future 128-bit machine whose "long" is 64 bits and "long long" is 128. (Heck, forget "future" -- such machines exist today!) That would be perfectly legal for a C compiler to do. "uint32_t" is much more precise and unambiguous than "unsigned long" -- I read that and have no doubt how big the author expected the data type to be.
-Steve _______________________________________________ Libevent-users mailing list Libevent-users@monkey.org http://monkey.org/mailman/listinfo/libevent-users
