> One thing I would wish for a _LINUX_SOURCE would be the definition of
> the "linux standard" __u{64,32,16,8} / u{64,32,16,8} /
> s{64,32,16,8} / __s{64,32,16,8} typedefs.
Did you ever thought about namespace problems? These names are one of
the reasons many programs contain #ifdef linux or exist in Linux
variants.
> No, switching the kernel code to C9x style type defines is not an option
> neither.
Is this a sacrilege? Or are the types above now the types chosen by
the Gods and all the rest of the world has to follow? Why not try it
once the other way round and follow what the rest of the world does?
This need not even be done in the kernel sources, only in the headers.
The asm/types.h file simply could define both types.
A very easy solution to this problem is to have in the application
code a header which defines these types. Not including these types is
again the only mean to make sure these incompatible types are not
generally used.
How should an average programmer know that these types shouldn't be
used. S/He will look throught the headers, see these types, they are
defined for Linux and they are short and handy and so will use them.
Voila, just another Linux specific program. If on the other hand
these names are not available the correct types automatically will be
used and the programs written by those programmers are automatically
portable.
-- ---------------. drepper at gnu.org ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Cygnus Solutions `--' drepper at cygnus.com `------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu