Re: Supporting Data Types "ushort_t" and "uchar_t"

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail 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