On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:16:29PM -0400, Mouse wrote: > > If that periodically-threatened pdp10 port (or some other off-size > > port) ever appears, it's not likely to care about the size that > > appears in some other environment (unlike for on-disk structures) and > > using an explicit size will if anything make life more complicated. > > Especially if it's a size that doesn't exist on that port. Is uint32_t > "32 bits" or "at least 32 bits"? THe former may well not exist on a > pdp10 port.
It's exactly 32 bits. There's a uint_least32_t defined in C99 (and in our headers and such) for the latter. However, I'm not convinced there's ever been a serious implementation done that required that mechanism, and most code both in and out of our tree certainly doesn't use it. I'm sure at this point someone could put together a 36-bit machine out of FPGAs that ran fast enough to be used as a low-volume web server, and there are certainly heterogeneity advantages to such a platform. Maybe someone who knows enough about such things should actually do this :-) -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org