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

[Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu>]

Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:

> 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 */
> ICBW, but wasn't uint<n>_t only promised to be at least <n> bits?

No.  See C99 7.18.1.1:

     7.18.1.1 Exact-width integer types

1    The typedef name intN_t designates a signed integer type with
     width N, no padding bits, and a two's complement
     representation. Thus, int8_t denotes a signed integer type
     with a width of exactly 8 bits.

2    The typedef name uintN_t designates an unsigned integer type
     with width N. Thus, uint24_t denotes an unsigned integer
     type with a width of exactly 24 bits.

3    These types are optional. However, if an implementation
     provides integer types with widths of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits,
     it shall define the corresponding typedef names.

-- 
"To the engineer, the world is a toy box full of sub-optimized and
 feature-poor toys."
--Scott Adams