Roman Mashak wrote:
> I don't quite understand how it's decided what types to use, C99
> (uint32_t etc.) or linux defines (linux/types.h). What's the proper
> way to handle this dilemma?

Depends. The explicitly sized types in the Linux headers have been around
longer than that the C99 standard has been implemented; BSD also had their
flavour (u_int32_t or somesuch). For Linux code (code for Linux
specifically, not code just running under Linux!) I'd use its own types,
because those are typically also the ones used for declarations of
interfaces.

For portable code, I'd use the C99 ones. Even on legacy-systems where this
header is not (yet) supported or in C++ it can be emulated trivially,
while the benefit of using a standardised way to get a n-bit integer is
significant.

In other cases, I wouldn't use either, e.g. because I don't know the
correct size. Don't fall for the same assumption like those that believe
that a 'long' is 32 bit!

> E-mail: xxx@xxxxx.xx

Irrelevant, asked on the Usenet, answered on the Usenet.

Uli

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> Roman Mashak wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I don't quite understand how it's decided what types to use, C99
>> (uint32_t etc.) or linux defines (linux/types.h). What's the proper way
>> to handle this dilemma?
>
> Use where is exists and fall back to something else
> (maybe ) where it doesn't.

Unless you are writing Linux kernel code where you should probably
be using .

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"Indeed, I am impressed that Google runs an 8,000 node Linux
cluster, 5 data centers, an extensive network, and a rapidly
evolving application all with a staff of 12."
-- http://research.microsoft.com/~gray/...FAAMs_HPTS.doc

Roman Mashak wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I don't quite understand how it's decided what types to use, C99 (uint32_t
> etc.) or linux defines (linux/types.h). What's the proper way to handle
> this dilemma?

Use where is exists and fall back to something else
(maybe ) where it doesn't.

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random
digits is, of course, in a state of sin." - John Von Neumann (1951)

Erik de Castro Lopo writes:
> Roman Mashak wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I don't quite understand how it's decided what types to use, C99 (uint32_t
>> etc.) or linux defines (linux/types.h). What's the proper way to handle
>> this dilemma?
>
> Use where is exists and fall back to something else
> (maybe ) where it doesn't.

For UNIX(*) and similar systems, the 'portable' way would be (as far
as I know) to include intypes.h (which, for instance, exists on
Solaris 8, where stdint.h doesn't).

Hello, Rainer!
You wrote on Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:08:38 +0100:

??>>> I don't quite understand how it's decided what types to use, C99
??>>> (uint32_t etc.) or linux defines (linux/types.h). What's the proper
??>>> way to handle this dilemma?
??>>
??>> Use where is exists and fall back to something else
??>> (maybe ) where it doesn't.

Thanks to everyone, it's more clear to me now.

With best regards, Roman Mashak. E-mail: mrv@tusur.ru