[Swan-dev] u_int*_t vs uint*_t

Andrew Cagney andrew.cagney at gmail.com
Tue Sep 12 19:59:31 UTC 2017


On 12 September 2017 at 15:33, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh at mimosa.com> wrote:

> I would think that uintN_t should be used in preference to u_intN_t
> since the former is a standard part of C and the latter comes from
> some Linux kernal internal convention (I think).
>
> See stdint.h(0P)
>
> Why do we use u_* so often?
>
>
Probably because the code pre-dates C99 general availability.  While we're
now well past that, switching everything over is a PITA.  I figure as long
as new code isn't taking us backwards.



> u_* may well make sense for kernel interfaces.  It depends how they
> are documented (huh!).
>
> u_* seems wrong for things in ietf_constants.h.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swan-dev mailing list
> Swan-dev at lists.libreswan.org
> https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.libreswan.org/pipermail/swan-dev/attachments/20170912/8a38b777/attachment.html>


More information about the Swan-dev mailing list