Re: uint64_t fails with C++

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 07 December 2011 16:18:26 Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2011-12-07 15:31 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 December 2011 14:10:27 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > >> C++ compilers do not get these definition from stdint.h unless
> > > >> __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS is defined, the macros are in C99 and later, but
> > > >> were not in the C++ standard of the day (I don't know if they're in
> > > >> later C++ standards), so aren't defined for C++ compilers by
> > > >> default.
> > > > 
> > > > I still don't understand the details of the autoconf problem (and I
> > > > still think that something is fishy), but defining this macro works
> > > > just fine :-)
> > > 
> > > Clearly, depending on an implementation-dependent macro is not
> > > suitable for portable software.
> > 
> > i thought __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS was part of the spec and thus not
> > "implementation dependent" ?
> 
> Sort-of.  It is included non-normatively in the C specification as a
> recommendation to C++ implementations.  C++98 didn't include these
> macros at all, and thus had nothing to say on the subject.
> 
> Nevertheless, the latest revision of the C++ specification includes
> these macros, and explicitly states that you do *not* need to define
> __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS to get them.

sorry, pronoun confusion ... i think you're saying:
latest rev of the C++ spec includes macros such as __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS, and 
that the spec states that you do *not* need to define __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS in 
order to have uint64_t and friends available when including stdint.h ?
-mike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.