> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:17:43PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:51:13PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: > > > Why advertise uint16_t, are we trying to save memory? I would just do > > > them uint32_t... > > > > While few things are certain in computing, I don't think we are going to > > see a 65535 MHz processor any time soon. But sure, uint32_t is fine too. > > Why not just "unsigned"? There doesn't seem to be any reason to size > it explicitly...
for user/kernel APIs we try to use fixed-sized types and structures so that 32/64 bit compat issues are elided. .mrg.