From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 4 14:15:44 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2696416A420; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:15:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3894A43D5D; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:15:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF17E46C24; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:15:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:17:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= In-Reply-To: <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no> Message-ID: <20060204141631.K31814@fledge.watson.org> References: <200602032350.k13NoQ1c047653@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060203155613.J41267@knight.iXsystems.com> <200602040111.12261.max@love2party.net> <86u0bf9q3c.fsf@xps.des.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-1044562832-1139062670=:31814" Cc: "Devon H. O'Dell" , Max Laier , src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/security/audit audit_arg.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:15:44 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-1044562832-1139062670=:31814 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Max Laier 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 historica= l=20 > 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= =20 shouldn't be updated, but is actually the case. Recent Darwin releases=20 properly support the newer type names, but older versions don't. Since we'= re=20 primarily interested in compatibility with recent Darwin, it makes sense to= =20 update once we've finished the merge. Robert N M Watson --0-1044562832-1139062670=:31814--