[Git][NTPsec/ntpsec][master] 2 commits: Some u_long -> unsigned int changes.

[Gary E. Miller]

Yo Hal!

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:37:28 -0700
Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net> wrote:

> How many platforms out there are small enough to have 16 bit ints but
> big enough to be running ntpd?  (or attempting to run it)

At my local Oregon State University (OSU) they teach the kids a lot on
Atmel.  You can do a lot with a small Atmel CPU.  Then those kids go
to big commpanies and just reuse what they learned.

If NTPsec decides they can not support that size, then the deprecation
should be very explicit.  Right now NTPsec just askes for C99 and
POSIX-2001.

> Much of the time, int32_t isn't what I want.  I just want something
> bigger than 16, whatever is most convenient for the platform it will
> run on.  If it matters for something like cache usage, I'm probably
> willing to think about it.

Then int_least32_t or int_fast32_t should be used.  I hate spending time
trying to unravel how big a variable must be to work in all cases.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
	gem at rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20160923/07616a1b/attachment.bin>