C99 types patch
daniel at fooishbar.org
Thu Oct 22 09:00:18 PDT 2009
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:20:35PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 20:55:57 +0900 2009:
> > I mean just for CARDxx and INTxx, i.e. they really only have the number
> > of bits implied by the type. XID/Atom/etc, where they're just used as
> > unsigned long, will have to stay that way. Shrug.
> Yeah, the CARD/INT stuff should be replaced globally, starting with
> header file hacks and moving into the rest of the code. However, the
> suggested patch also replaced the XID types everywhere.
> > In what sense is CARD32/INT32 more self-documenting than
> > uint32_t/int32_t?
> I only meant to reference Window/Pixmap/etc where the typenames
> all point at XID but provide additional information about the API.
Oh sure, I don't think it makes any sense to change them. At the very
most, just typedef them to (u)intNN_t; making our API more opaque and
mystic than it already is, seems like somewhat of a loss.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20091023/1b4a549f/attachment.pgp
More information about the xorg-devel