Subject: Re: The Function Prototypes Debate vs. C9X...
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org, current-users@NetBSD.ORG, tech-userland@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Ty Sarna <email@example.com>
Date: 02/16/1997 11:41:02
In article <199702160601.AAA02026@solutions.solon.com> you write:
> probably a Bad Thing for the language. There's also an <inttypes.h> which
> has, among other things, "int64_t", which is a guaranteed exactly 64-bit
> type. I reccommend we consider migrating things towards this in cases
> where what we mean is "N bits", rather than a specific name for a type.
Is there any reason not to start moving towards inttypes.h now? I think
sevreal vendors already have it (SGI? HP?). For one of my projects, I'm
already using it (and have hacked up a NetBSD version, that includes
sys/types.h and then defines the missing stuff (intmax_t, etc). A real
NetBSD version should probably just move that stuff out of sys/types.h
to inttypes.h, and have sys/types.h include it).