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

[Alexander Viro]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Brad Hards wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 07:42, Alexander Viro wrote:
> <snip>
> > Strictly speaking, there might be a DISadvantage - IIRC, there's nothing to
> > stop gcc from
> > #define uint8_t unsigned long long	/* it is at least 8 bits */
> Here is an extract from <linux/types.h>
> typedef         __u8            uint8_t;
> typedef         __u16           uint16_t;
> 
> > 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.

The difference between compiler's "unsigned at least n bits" and kernel's
"unsigned exactly n bits".  They may very well be the same on all platforms
we are interested in presuming that compiler is sane, but at the very least
the implied meaning is different.