This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: C99 macros
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Cc: "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Yufeng Zhang <Yufeng dot Zhang at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:00:01 +0100
- Subject: Re: C99 macros
- References: <502BD9C1.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 15/08/12 18:47, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 August 2012 13:17:53 Yufeng Zhang wrote:
>> It has been pointed out that the use of the C99 macros PRIi64 and
>> PRIx64 (in opcodes/aarch64-opc.c) may cause the build to fail in
>> an environment where there is lack of C99 support.
>> I am considering to eliminate the dependency on this C99 feature
>> by replacing PRIi64 and PRIx64 with some alternative approach in
>> the AArch64 port. Before doing that, I wonder what the general
>> policy is about coding the binutils using C99 features.
>> Interestingly, I didn't find any other port includes the
>> inttypes.h header file (not to say the use of PRIi64 and
> we use them in gdb and the sim, although we have gnulib available
> in the gdb subdir. in general though, i don't see a problem using
> inttypes.h since glibc has had the header since 1997. wait to see
> if someone complains.
> also, isn't stdint.h and the uint32_t/etc... types technically C99
> ? -mike
Yes, though that then begs the question why, 13 years after c99 was
published, we're still restricting ourselves to a 23-year-old predecessor?