Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:17:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: "Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@ixsystems.com>, Max Laier <max@love2party.net>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/security/audit audit_arg.c Message-ID: <20060204141631.K31814@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <200602032350.k13NoQ1c047653@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060203155613.J41267@knight.iXsystems.com> <200602040111.12261.max@love2party.net> <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Max Laier <max@love2party.net> writes: >> As this is somewhat vendor code, I think u_int64_t is okay. > > On the contrary; u_int*_t is an old BSDism (which we accept for historical > reasons), while uint64_t is the correct C99 syntax. The vendor in this case is/uses an old BSD (Darwin). Which isn't to say it shouldn't be updated, but is actually the case. Recent Darwin releases properly support the newer type names, but older versions don't. Since we're primarily interested in compatibility with recent Darwin, it makes sense to update once we've finished the merge. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060204141631.K31814>