C99 types patch
daniel at fooishbar.org
Thu Oct 22 04:55:57 PDT 2009
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:49:26PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 18:23:42 +0900 2009:
> > Right. Why don't we just ditch CARD32 and move to the native inttypes.h
> > types everywhere but Xlib?
> Do you want to do this for all XID types? Also, I assume you're
> proposing that we drop Cray support from the protocol headers at the
> same time, right?
I mean just for CARDxx and INTxx, i.e. they really only have the number
of bits implied by the type. XID/Atom/etc, where they're just used as
unsigned long, will have to stay that way. Shrug.
(And I have no objection to dropping Cray support.)
> My only question is whether we want to retain the existing abstract
> types to make the interfaces a bit more 'self documenting'.
In what sense is CARD32/INT32 more self-documenting than
uint32_t/int32_t? The only times I've seen people pick up CARD32,
they've gone 'oh, this is a 32-bit value we hand to the video card'.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20091022/e55174bd/attachment.pgp
More information about the xorg-devel