Dag Arne Osvik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>... and with such name 99% will assume (at least at the first reading) >>that it _is_ 32bits. We have more than enough portability bugs as it >>is, no need to invite more by bad names. > > Agreed. The way I see it there are two reasonable options. One is to > just use u32, which is always correct but sacrifices speed (at least > with the current gcc). The other is to introduce C99 types, which Linus > doesn't seem to object to when they are kept away from interfaces > (http://infocenter.guardiandigital.com/archive/linux-kernel/2004/Dec/0117.html).
There is a third option which has already been pointed out before: Use unsigned long. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
