[gdal-dev] Call for discussion/review of RFC95: Use standard C/C++ integer types

[Kurt Schwehr]

+1 Yes please!!

Thoughts:
- I've battled with the types so many times over the years. The pain caused
by a switch will be well worth it
- Q1: I'm for going to GDAL 4.0.
- Q2: Having a GDAL_USE_OLD_INT_TYPES for a while seems like a good idea to
expose the alias to users of the library
- Q3: Yes to vsi_l_offset -> uint64_t. I'm 90% for it. For me: Yes offset
has meaning, but if the type is critical to understanding a function /
method interface, we should have a comment. Knowing that it's an unsigned
64 bit int is usually more important. Would be great if anyone against this
change could speak up and give some examples.

Short term pain, but long term big gains in readability for people new to
GDAL / stability / maintainability / ability to cross compile.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:24 AM Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've submitted an initial version of RFC95: Use standard C/C++ integer
> types
>
>      https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/8399
>
> It has important implications on backward compatibility of C and C++
> API. The "questions to be answer" paragraph need to be answered.
>
> Even
>
> --
> http://www.spatialys.com
> My software is free, but my time generally not.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20230915/c8fc56a1/attachment.htm>