Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness..
From: William Lee Irwin III (wli_at_holomorphy.com)
Date: 07/31/04
- Previous message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: [PATCH] add PCI ROMs to sysfs"
- In reply to: Eric Anholt: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Next in thread: Dave Airlie: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:06:41 -0700 To: Eric Anholt <eta@lclark.edu>
On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 02:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> can you explain why u32 would be outlawed? Surely it's trivial to do a
>> typedef for u32 on BSD for drm ??
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 02:57:17AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> If there are nice standard types (uint32_t or u_int32_t, can't remember
> which at the moment, I mentioned it in an email some time ago) out there
> already that linux has too, why not use those?
uint*_t. ISTR something about Linux' usage predating standard type
names for the things.
I have much more serious issues with other naming conventions to get
worked up about this one. In general I don't mind ones that are less
verbose than the standard.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: [PATCH] add PCI ROMs to sysfs"
- In reply to: Eric Anholt: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Next in thread: Dave Airlie: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
