Subject: Re: INT*_C macros and inttypes.h
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: Klaus Klein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/29/2001 11:04:52
Simon Burge <email@example.com> writes:
> The Single Unix Spec v2 doesn't mention these in its definition of
> <inttypes.h>, and there's not reference at all to a <stdint.h>.
Not surprising, since it predates ISO C99. But be assured the 200x
revision of POSIX will take care of it...
Actually, I was short of committing them a while ago, but no consensus
could be reached about the implementation of the fastest minimum-width
> /* 220.127.116.11 Macros for greatest-width integer constants */
> #define INTMAX_C(VALUE) VALUE##LL
> #define UINTMAX_C(VALUE) VALUE##ULL
Note that types these symbols are intended for have not been
implemented yet. (And there are even more of that kind.)
At this point we already have exact-width types and types capable of
holding object pointers, and I can go ahead and add definitions for
minimum-width types and greatest-width types. However, I'd like a
resolution for int_fastN_t types being come up with.