X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4A82DA42.3030805@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:05:38 +0100 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Supporting Data Types "ushort_t" and "uchar_t" References: <4A82CBB1 DOT 30507 AT comcast DOT net> <20090812141530 DOT GA14016 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4A82CF78 DOT 4050504 AT comcast DOT net> <4A82D5CD DOT 1020604 AT comcast DOT net> In-Reply-To: <4A82D5CD.1020604@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Larry Adams wrote: > My concern is that the "*_t" typedefs are supposed to > be hardware architecture agnostic, and there must have been some reason, > other than "geeze everything else is that way, so why not do those two" > to have done this for Solaris. Yeh, but I'd imagine the other reason was NIH syndrome. Declaring a typedef that is exactly the same as a builtin type (as opposed to one that has different semantics, even though it is defined in terms of the internal types) is fairly silly. "unsigned char" is every bit as hardware agnostic as "uchar_t", it's pointless. I would suggest you guys just avoid the use of these misbegotten aliases in your code... cheers, DaveK -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple