[coreboot] Shortened in types (u32) vs stdint types (uint32_t)

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 23:44 +0100, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> I'd like to register my vote of disapproval of a move to stdint.
> 
> u8/u16/u32 are a perfectly fine set of types and the Linux kernel uses
> them a lot.

It shouldn't. They're equally anachronistic there. The Linux kernel
stopped building with C89 a *long* time ago.

> We owe our usage of these short type names to our Linux kernel heritage.
> Besides that, they are very convenient to type und read due to their
> short names. I stopped counting how often I typed u_int32t instead of
> uint32_t.

Ah yes, that was the BSD abomination I'd forgotten. Wasn't it u_int32_t
or something like that?

Seriously though, you'll get over that *really* quickly if you start
using C99 standard types as a matter of routine. Your fingers don't take
that long to learn, as a one-off.

But yes, you highlight the issue which is caused by people clinging to
their own nonsense, non-standard types instead of using the language
properly. Your fingers have to be retrained every time you switch
between projects.

-- 
dwmw2
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5745 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20140129/32de41af/attachment.bin>