Subject: Re: C Language Standard(s)
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Christoph Badura <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/01/1996 15:45:00
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
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 email@example.com
You don't need to quote my .signature. Everyone has seen it by now.
Besides, it doesn't add anything to the current thread.