Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:30:17 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Anyone object to the following change in libc? Message-ID: <20031031221531.A1212@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <3FA238C5.40045975@mindspring.com> References: <BAEB9CED-091F-11D8-B483-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> <20031030120925.K80335@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031031174658.T3463@gamplex.bde.org> <3FA238C5.40045975@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > ... int8_t is
> > optional in C99 and all code that uses it unconditionally is unportable.
> > Similarly for most other types in <stdint.h>. The required ones are
> > [u]int_least{8,16,32,64}_t and [u]int_fast{8,16,32,64}_t and [u]intmax_t,
> > i.e., nothing that can't be declared in C90 except a 64-bit type.
>
> I believe that you meant to say uint8_t is optional, and int8_t is
> required (see /usr/src/sys/*/include/_types.h). I think this was a
> concession to IBM, which defaulted to unsigned characters, and
> lacked a "signed" keyword in its compilers.
No, I meant what I wrote. All fixed-width types are optional, at least
in the C99 draft (n869.txt). There is nothing special about uint8_t vs
int8_t except that it might not exist for a different reason.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031031221531.A1212>