[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: stdint vs cycle-check.h
From: |
Mark D. Baushke |
Subject: |
Re: stdint vs cycle-check.h |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:07:05 -0700 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Larry Jones <lawrence.jones@ugs.com> writes:
> Paul Eggert writes:
> >
> > For cycle-check.h I'd think this wouldn't be a problem, since
> > cycle-check.h uses this Autoconf-recommended sequence:
> >
> > # if HAVE_INTTYPES_H
> > # include <inttypes.h>
> > # endif
> > # if HAVE_STDINT_H
> > # include <stdint.h>
> > # endif
>
> I don't understand that recommendation. Since <inttypes.h> is supposed
> to #include <stdint.h>, why isn't the recommendation:
>
> # if HAVE_INTTYPES_H
> # include <inttypes.h>
> # elif HAVE_STDINT_H
> # include <stdint.h>
> # endif
>
> ???
Yes, I suspect that Larry's recommendation may be better.
If <inttypes.h> exists, then it will include <stdint.h>
according to:
http://www.opengroup.org/susv3xbd/inttypes.h.html
(the URL given in gnulib/lib/inttypes.h)
In the particular case of windows-NT, there is
neither an <inttypes.h> nor a <stdint.h> unless
either of them are generated by GNULIB macros, so
there is still a bit of a confusion in how the
config.h file should be generated along with the
Makefile.am files to specify one or the other or
both.
-- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFEmPAZCg7APGsDnFERAiljAJ0aEmjloQysp2KvyKt5MGZtT2vbYwCg1onp
7EYi70wDpfIIekngm3ddfbk=
=b2in
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: stdint vs cycle-check.h, (continued)
- Re: stdint vs cycle-check.h, Larry Jones, 2006/06/20
- Re: stdint vs cycle-check.h,
Mark D. Baushke <=
Re: [bug-gnulib] stdint vs cycle-check.h, Bruno Haible, 2006/06/27