From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:48:18 -0500 From: William Josephson To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] how to avoid a memset() optimization Message-ID: <20021114164818.GA86920@mero.morphisms.net> References: <20021113165620.GD82247@mero.morphisms.net> <3DD35A06.7090802@null.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DD35A06.7090802@null.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1fe6711e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:21:56AM +0000, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote: > William K. Josephson wrote: > >It gets worse: "you must use foo_uint32_t because we don't want > >to get burned if the size of the standard types change". The > >amount of time I wasted yesterday all because people insist using > >poorly thought out additions to the language, header files, and > >libraries is not to be believed. They mumble about "simplicity" > >and then insist on using the worst voodoo in C99 :-) > > There is no foo_* in Standard C. You are completely missing the point. > to do so. How much code have you had to port where it > was assumed that long was 32 bits, or 4 chars, or that > short was aliasable to an array of 2 chars? We had the > dickens of a time getting such code fixed to work on > 64-bit platforms. Plenty; that's not the point. > If you're referring to such things as off_t needing to > be enlarged as a system evolves, applications don't need > to use anything other than off_t at the source level. No again.