On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:32:03PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 17 December 2010 17:54, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: > > My patch does not touch the bits* types. I didn't notice any problem there. > > > > I replaced int32 by int32_t, int64 by int64_t etc. No sane code puts more > > than 32 bits into an "int32" variable, and my guests on OSX/ppc64 host still > > appeared to work. I don't have arm guests though so please check on your > > side. > > Hrm. That introduces potential semantic changes, so I'm a bit wary > of it (and my test suite is not currently comprehensive enough to be > sure of covering all of softfloat)... I'd be happier if we just renamed > the int32 & friends to some other non-clashing name, if all we're > trying to solve is a name clash issue.
I wouldn't be too worried: typedef uint8_t flag; typedef uint8_t uint8; typedef int8_t int8; typedef int uint16; typedef int int16; typedef unsigned int uint32; typedef signed int int32; typedef uint64_t uint64; typedef int64_t int64; So adding _t suffixes in appropriate places should be a no-op, except for uint16/int16--and those types are never used. -Nathan
