2 Jul
2012
2 Jul
'12
7:20 p.m.
Well, that "uint32_t" crap is *very* useful
for networking protocols
or binary file parsing.
...until you want to port to an architecture that doesn't have a 32-bit
data type.
I would much prefer to use uint_atleast_32_t (or however it's spelled)
and pack/unpack the octet stream explicitly. Significantly more
portable, clear, and future-proof. Or at least that's how I see it.
For hardware drivers, which IIRC is where this came from, I see little
to no real difference between (say) unsigned short and uint16_t for
these purposes; the portability demands for hardware drivers are rather
different.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B