RE: the rationale for defining macros for simple types?

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

 



On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Smith, Jason - VA wrote:

> Robert,
>
> stdint.h is a part of glibc methinks, and not part of any blessed
> standard that I am aware of.

my copy of harbison and steele lists <stdint.h> as part of C99.  am i
somehow reading that incorrectly?

> What you probably want to include for the int*_t types is
> <inttypes.h>, which found in /usr/(local/)?/include on most of the
> common *nix's out there (might be part of a standard like C99 too).

again, from my copy of H&S, inttypes.h includes stdint.h, so i guess
either one would work fine.  i'm guessing inttypes.h would be the
better choice since it's more all-encompassing.  thanks.

rday
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-c-programming" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Assembler]     [Git]     [Kernel List]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Autoconf]     [C Programming]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Yosemite News]     [GCC Help]

  Powered by Linux