[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: A simple cpufreq(9)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:17:43PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:51:13PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > Why advertise uint16_t, are we trying to save memory? I would just do
> > them uint32_t...
> While few things are certain in computing, I don't think we are going to
> see a 65535 MHz processor any time soon. But sure, uint32_t is fine too.
Why not just "unsigned"? There doesn't seem to be any reason to size
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |