u_int32_t vs uint32_t
torrey at mrcla.com
Mon Aug 23 21:36:22 PDT 2004
At 11:45 PM -0400 8/23/04, Keith Packard wrote:
>Around 16 o'clock on Aug 23, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>> So what about just using CARD32 as the rest of the X code does to define
>> this portably?
>That sounds like where we are at this point with the limited abilities of
>imake to accomodate system variance.
>I wonder what the US version of this code did; it seems like it built and
>ran nicely on all of the standard platforms...
I think we can have our cake and eat it to. The problem is just that
we are using a non-standard <sys/types.h> header file for standards
At 10:04 AM -0700 8/23/04, Stuart Kreitman wrote:
>Here is a reference to the C99 standard that uint32_t is preferred:
>With that I'm putting back the update to Wraphelp.c
If you read the O'Reilly publication to the end you will find, "The
new C99 standard has made a number of minor improvements to the C
programming language. Among these, the most important for embedded
programmers to understand are the contents of the new stdint.h header
The <stdint.h> header file is where the uint32_t needs to be defined
according to the standard. On many platforms <stdint.h> will just
include the same OS specific types in <sys/types.h>, but this is not
required. What is required to be C99 compliant is that <stdint.h>
defines these types. Are there any supported platforms where
<stdint.h> does not work?
More information about the release-wranglers