On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 09:48 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Xi, > > On 8/25/22 09:28, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 09:20 +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > I don't know for sure, and I never pretended to say otherwise. But what > > > IMHO the kernel could do is to make the types compatible, by typedefing > > > to the same fundamental types (i.e., long or long long) that user-space > > > types do. > > > > In user-space things are already inconsistent as we have multiple libc > > implementations. Telling every libc implementation to sync their > > typedef w/o a WG14 decision will only cause "aggressive discussion" (far > > more aggressive than this thread, I'd say). > > > > If int64_t etc. were defined as builtin types since epoch, things would > > be a lot easier. But we can't change history. > > This would be great. I mean, the fundamental types should be u8, u16, > ... and int, long, ... typedefs for these, and not the other way around, > if the language was designed today. > > Maybe GCC could consider something like that. GCC already have __UINT8_TYPE__ etc. but again telling all libc implementations to use "typedef __UINT8_TYPE__ uint8_t" etc. will make no effect expect annoying their maintainers. -- Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxx> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
