From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <8dc25d6e6eb4100818b09a511477f06e@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Sleep-complexity
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Sun,  8 May 2005 22:12:35 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20050508172815.GA29137@augusta.math.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 46cff23c-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> because long and int are the same so it really doesn't matter.

>That's not a terribly great assumption to make, is it?

the assumption usually made in practice is a little more subtle:
int <= long[=32] < long long [=64].  most older programs tended
to use int for things such as for loop values, that probably needed to be
at least 16 bits, but might not need to be as much as 32.
by contrast, a `long' quite often needed to be 32 bits, and often
that was `no more, no less'.

it's historically consistent and works well enough.
u32int etc are used a bit more these days, but not
exclusively.

the other subtle assumptions concern pointers and integers.
as it happens, the best choice there is happily consistent with dhog's, although
he didn't face that problem in his alpha port.  it does need source
code changes, but with care, they tend to be fairly limited, outside the kernel.