u_long valid C?

[Joe Van Dyk]

u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far as
I know)

Joe

[jjf]

Joe Van Dyk wrote:

u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far as
I know)

It's not a C type, but the programmer may have used typedef to make it
a synonym for a C type. What it is, or should or shouldn't be, depends
on the programmer.

[Ian Collins]

Joe Van Dyk wrote:

u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far as
I know)

Yes. u_long might be a typedef for unsigned long in some environments.

--
Ian Collins.

[Keith Thompson]

Joe Van Dyk <jo********@boeing.com> writes:

u_long isn't a valid C type, right? (should be unsigned long, as far
as I know)

u_long is a valid C type if it's been defined as a typedef.

Doing so is, in my opinion, a bad idea. A typedef creates an alias
for an existing type. The purpose is either to create a more
meaningful name:
typedef unsigned char byte;
or to allow for the possibility that the underlying type might change:
typedef int32 int;
/* OR */
typedef int32 long;

u_long serves neither of these purposes. If you want unsigned long,
use unsigned long; don't make your reader guess whether "u_long" means
what it appears to mean. If there's any chance that your type
"u_long" might be defined as something other than unsigned long, don't
call it "u_long".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.