Chris Demetriou wrote:
>Christoph Badura wrote:
>> Scott Reynolds wrote:
>> >The only times that 
>> >I see a need for the intNN_t types are in pieces of code that deal 
>> >with standards (networking, most notably) and hardware drivers.  Of 
>> >course, it's very important in those instances.
>> I second that.

>You both are missing an important use of fixed-bit-width types:

I don't think so.

>On-disk data structures.

I believe Scott subsumes that under standards.  And I subsume this
under external data representations.

>Unless i'm mistaken, that's why the DB code uses fixed-size data
>types.

And the parts of the DB code that deal with the on-disk representation
are just fine.  However, just because it uses 16-bit quantities on disk
doesn't mean that you have to use 16-bit quantities in the code where
a atleast-16-bit quantities would do just as well.

I would have thought that you had to deal with similar problems in you
64-bit-proof TCP code.

-- 
Christoph Badura	bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org

You don't need to quote my .signature.  Everyone has seen it by now.
Besides, it doesn't add anything to the current thread.