[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: stdint vs cycle-check.h

From: Larry Jones
Subject: Re: stdint vs cycle-check.h
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:38:18 -0400 (EDT)

Paul Eggert writes:
> lawrence.jones@ugs.com (Larry Jones) writes:
> >
> > I don't understand that recommendation.  Since <inttypes.h> is supposed
> > to #include <stdint.h>, why isn't the recommendation:
> As I recall, it's for some older hosts where <inttypes.h> does not
> include <stdint.h>.  Sorry, I don't recall the details.

That's interesting.  The original <inttypes.h> proposal for C99 had
everything in one header; it was later divided up between <stdint.h>,
which is required for all implementations, and <inttypes.h>, which is
only required for hosted implementations and includes <stdint.h> so that
code that only included <inttypes.h> would continue to work.

Given that history, I would expect any implementation of <inttypes.h> to
either define all the <stdint.h> stuff itself (which is what the SGI
version does in C89 mode) or #include <stdint.h> (which is what it does
in C99 mode).  I can't imagine why any implementation would have split
the stuff up without doing the appropriate #include to protect existing

-Larry Jones

Shut up and go get me some antiseptic. -- Calvin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]