Re: A simple cpufreq(9)

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

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
it explicitly...

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost