Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Why have xxx_t typedef names Message-ID: <15131@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 8 Feb 91 20:33:30 GMT References: <15031@smoke.brl.mil> <23133@netcom.COM> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 17 In article <23133@netcom.COM> avery@netcom.COM (Avery Colter) writes: >gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>systems that have (e.g. POSIX ones) generally allow the >Hmmmm, must mean ORCA/C is a POSIX compiler. I do know the >in that one mainly defines types of use to the native toolbox, >while the _t types are mainly scattered throughout the header files >which use them the most, i.e. time_t and clock_t in , >div_t and ldiv_t in , etc. Aargh! and are NOT synonymous. ORCA/C does not provide . ANSI C requires that certain *_t types be defined in certain standard headers, and as an honest attempt at a conforming implementation, ORCA/C does just that. Note that APW follows no canonical pattern in the name space that it usurps, unlike the *_t convention (mostly) followed by POSIX . (There are some "modifier" patterns for denoting derived types such as "pointer to" and "handle for".)