On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 05:45:27AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 03:35:08PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > This is the implementation (currently Xen, local only).
>
> Thanks !
>
> > +++ include/libvirt/libvirt.h.in 10 Aug 2007 14:30:21 -0000
> > @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@
> > #ifndef __VIR_VIRLIB_H__
> > #define __VIR_VIRLIB_H__
> >
> > +#include <sys/types.h>
> > +#include <stdint.h>
> > +
> [...]
> > +struct _virDomainBlockStats {
> > + int64_t rd_req;
>
> That's my only worry at the moment. stdint.h isn't really that portable,
> we want to define an 64bits unsigned field, but we already use
> unsigned long long
> in libvirt.h . I would be tempted to rationalize this, either we think
> (stdint.h/int64_t) is more portable or long long is the one, but I would
> prefer if we picked one and stick with it at the API level.
I don't mind one way or the other - there's not really much to choose
between them - int64_t is POSIX, while long long is C99. So both are
'standards'. They've both been available on Linux & Solaris for as long
as I can remember.
# info gcc
"5.8 Double-Word Integers
========================
ISO C99 supports data types for integers that are at least 64 bits wide,
and as an extension GCC supports them in C89 mode and in C++. Simply
write `long long int' for a signed integer, or `unsigned long long int'
for an unsigned integer. "
# info inttypes.h
"If an implementation provides integer types with width 64 that meet these
requirements, then the following types are required: int64_t uint64_t"
Rock, paper, scissors. C99 wins!
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list