Darren Reed wrote:
> I'm somewhat uncomfortable with "long long" always implying 64bits,
> or with long implying only 32 bits...
>
> I'd prefer to see the API explicitly make a point of being for
> 64bit values, either with "uint64_t *" as the final arg or it being
> called "ddi_strtou64"... but maybe the horse has already bolted
> on this one, given ddi_strtoul, and thus the best we can hope for
> is to be consistent with past "mistakes"?
Yes. In this case, consistency with the Standard C (more or less).
Perhaps a good extension to this case would be to define ddi_strtou32(),
ddi_strtos32(), ddi_strtou64(), and ddi_strtos64()?
-- Garrett
>
> Darren
>
