This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi Sebastian, On Oct 10 08:43, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Provide __intmax_t and __uintmax_t via <machine/_default_types> for > FreeBSD compatibility. > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de> > --- > newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h b/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h > index ffc646d..eaa6cec 100644 > --- a/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h > +++ b/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h > @@ -211,6 +211,15 @@ typedef long __intptr_t; > typedef unsigned long __uintptr_t; > #endif > > +#ifdef __INTMAX_TYPE__ > +typedef __INTMAX_TYPE__ __intmax_t; > +#ifdef __UINTMAX_TYPE__ > +typedef __UINTMAX_TYPE__ __uintmax_t; > +#else > +typedef unsigned __INTMAX_TYPE__ __uintmax_t; > +#endif > +#endif > + This doesn't match the definition of the non-underscored intmax_t and uintmax_t from stdint.h. Is that intentional? If not, wouldn't it make sense to align the definitions? Or better, let's define __intmax_t and __uintmax_t in machine/_default_types.h according to the current definition in stdint.h and then use __intmax_t/__uintmax_t to define intmax_t/uintmax_t. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer Red Hat
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |