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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
