Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/08/14/09:34:03
I asked this off list, but I really should be asking it on list. Posted
here for the archives and if anyone cares to comment.
Cheers,
Nicholas
vinschen AT redhat DOT com wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:44:43PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>
>>Corinna,
>>
>>I can't really find any history on inttypes.h, but I noticed that you
>>were the one who committed it to cvs. I would like to know how you
>>derived the values for the macros. One of the widechar functions I've
>>been working on uses the handy function, strtoimax... so subsequently I
>>did a port for it and the other inttypes it as well. During this
>>process, I noticed that there seems to be a disconnect between how
>>you've defined some of the 32bit macros and how i386 glibc/mingw/bsd
>>have defined them. For example, looking at int32_t(PRId32):
>>
>>The bsd's: "d"
>>Glibc: "d"
>>MingW: "d"
>>Cygwin: "ld"
>>
>>Am I missing something here? I searched the archives, w/o any luck.
>>But before I submit an rfc to the main list (not to have it go in, just
>>to get people to test), I need to know if the macros are accurate.
>>Being that these functions are heavily asm dependant, I assume that
>>winsup/cygwin is the most appropriate place to dump 'em?
>
>
> I don't understand the problem. "ld" is as correct as "d" for 32 bit
> int types. I didn't use any foreign source to create the macros but
> only the description in SUSv3:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/inttypes.h.html
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -