Re: uint64_t fails with C++

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > > 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.

Regardless, it is worth pointing out that even if a standard specifies 
particular behavior, if all target platforms do not consistently 
implement that behavior, then the behavior is effectively 
"implementation dependent".

If we could always safely code according to the latest specification 
then the task would become much easier.  Unfortunately, we need to 
handle platforms/systems which were fielded well before the 
specifications were implemented.  This means that we need to be 
prepared to handle systems of some vintage, while striving to write 
code which is similar to (or uses) the current standards.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/