On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 21:19 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote: > =On May 24, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Zach Welch wrote: > > > On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 20:51 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > >> On Sunday 24 May 2009, Zach Welch wrote: > >>> - add iN equivalents to intN_t types; i32 is used by replacements.h > >> > >> The traditional sibling of a "u32" (unsigned) is an "s32" (signed). > >> > >> I don't know where "i32" came from, it's an interloper. > > > > That would be me, taking a blind stab in the dark. Mea culpa. > > > > Fixed: new patch attached for consideration. I have also fixed the > > duplicated section heading in the documentation. Anything else? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Zach > > > > > > > Maybe I misunderstood. I thought we were deprecating the use of "u32" > in favor of the C99-defined "uint32_t". Why would we define another > set of types when there a perfectly fine versions already available as > part of the language standard?
Heh. I just went back and re-read the original post and realized my mistake; however, I will defend my changes with two principles: 1) It's shorter/faster to type. This argument has been hashed out extensively on the Linux mailing lists. Linus has it right in this debate to prefer s32/u32. POSIX is dumb; however, that doesn't mean we can't exploit their work for own purposes. 2) More importantly, this patch applies the principle of least change. These changes both unify the type system around the types that are defined in "types.h" (and with the Linux kernel). Thus, we achieve conformance to an internal (and external) standard that we can enforce from here on. With less typing (this goes both for the types themselves and for the changes necessary to convert the entire tree to use the types that are used in only a handful of files today). Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
