Re: [patch] Input cleanups for 2.5.29 [2/2]

[Linus T. <tor...@tr...>]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Brad Hards wrote:
>
> Here is an extract from <linux/types.h>
> typedef         __u8            uint8_t;
> typedef         __u16           uint16_t;

Yes, and the thing you snipped from it was that it's inside a #ifdef.

Now, that #ifdef will be on for the __KERNEL__, but somebody else might
have compiled with some -traditional switch or other that disabled
"uint8_t" or just screwed it up some other way.

> > ICBW, but wasn't uint<n>_t only promised to be at least <n> bits?
> I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

I think the point Viro is making is that uint8_t actually exists on things 
like old cray's too, even if end sup being a 64-bit entity.

I don't think that is correct, though. I think that comes from another
(proposed but not implemented) C language extension that would have
allowed something like that, namely the

	int X:17;

syntax, where X would be guaranteed to be "17 bits or more". I don't 
remember.

		Linus