[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #45411] cast fail at liboctave/util/oct-inttyp
From: |
Dan Sebald |
Subject: |
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #45411] cast fail at liboctave/util/oct-inttypes.h on Sparc Solaris |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Jul 2015 02:38:32 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/18.0 SeaMonkey/2.15 |
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #45411 (project octave):
The signed vs. unsigned 8-bit type sounds about right. Can't think of any
simple approach because there appears to be a lot going on with regard to the
definition. In particular, these lines:
libgnu/stdint.in.h: files, so that we can "#define int8_t signed char" below
without
libgnu/stdint.in.h: signed char int8_t;" that will get messed up by our
macro. Our
libgnu/stdint.in.h:#undef int8_t
libgnu/stdint.in.h:#undef uint8_t
libgnu/stdint.in.h:typedef signed char gl_int8_t;
libgnu/stdint.in.h:typedef unsigned char gl_uint8_t;
libgnu/stdint.in.h:#define int8_t gl_int8_t
libgnu/stdint.in.h:#define uint8_t gl_uint8_t
libgnu/stdint.in.h:#define int_least8_t int8_t
libgnu/stdint.in.h:#define uint_least8_t uint8_t
mess around with the definitions of int8_t and uint8_t. Octave seems to be
assuming int8_t is signed, so if int8_t is undefined and some how redefined
with a "signed" qualifier it might be fine in terms of Octave's mathematical
treatment of related variable types.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?45411>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/