Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 12:30:44 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Piotr P. Stefaniak" <pstef@freebsd.org>, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 62d42655bca1 - main - usb(4): Substitute "unsigned int" using the equivalent and shorter "unsigned" keyword. Message-ID: <10a7f04e-5684-5434-d74b-ec80d6c1eea0@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Y0A7J8vyMhZgr1XC@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <202210071141.297BfcjN071407@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <Y0ASC9OXKP19xkSz@freefall.freebsd.org> <d7d3b1ef-1afe-bb84-d61c-031b3dff94c2@selasky.org> <Y0AnxWRAH7detuol@freefall.freebsd.org> <bf9cae46-5d31-e676-2640-c6b49cfdd902@selasky.org> <Y0A7J8vyMhZgr1XC@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/7/22 7:43 AM, Piotr P. Stefaniak wrote: > On 2022-10-07 16:21:01, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > >> Would uint32_t be more clear? > > I don't disagree with the style change to the point that I demand it be > corrected, please keep it the way it is now to avoid more churn. Agreed. > I just opposed the more general idea that this is an improvement. I say > it's debatable, at least until we have style.9 rule one way or the other. Yeah, I think it's a regression to be honest. None of the other unsigned base C types (unsigned short, unsigned long, etc.) have these short cuts in the language. I consider it bit of an odd anachronism. If you really want to use a shorter spelling of "unsigned int" in the tree, I think "u_int" is a better choice and more typical in FreeBSD. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10a7f04e-5684-5434-d74b-ec80d6c1eea0>