On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 07:54:39PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 08.03.2011 um 09:29 schrieb Peter Maydell:
Maybe we should have a patchset that does the uncontroversial
change (bits32-uint32_t c, which I think should be purely
mechanical) while we argue about this bit?
That should be
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 08:29:50AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 7 March 2011 23:37, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
I understand your point, but OTOH int_fast16_t means at least int16_t so
in practice it doesn't bring anything more than changing to int16_t,
except more pain as
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:34:07AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
AIX already didn't use our definition, so let's start ripping out this one:
As pointed out by Peter Maydell, int16 is currently int on most
supported platforms, so let's replace it with int_fast16_t,
allowing the system to use a
AIX already didn't use our definition, so let's start ripping out this one:
As pointed out by Peter Maydell, int16 is currently int on most
supported platforms, so let's replace it with int_fast16_t,
allowing the system to use a wider type if appropriate.
Note that Darwin uses [u]int16_t now,
