[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5a3ce36a284fe988694d2e75117aca5f9af66194.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:28:32 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Zack Weinberg <zackw@...ix.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alex Colomar <alx@...nel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
GCC <gcc-patches@....gnu.org>, LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
glibc <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Many pages: Document fixed-width types with ISO C
naming
On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 09:20 +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> I don't know for sure, and I never pretended to say otherwise. But what
> IMHO the kernel could do is to make the types compatible, by typedefing
> to the same fundamental types (i.e., long or long long) that user-space
> types do.
In user-space things are already inconsistent as we have multiple libc
implementations. Telling every libc implementation to sync their
typedef w/o a WG14 decision will only cause "aggressive discussion" (far
more aggressive than this thread, I'd say).
If int64_t etc. were defined as builtin types since epoch, things would
be a lot easier. But we can't change history.
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Powered by blists - more mailing lists