Micah Cowan <[email protected]> writes: > Hm... well, what about a check for C99 first, and then a fallback on > checking for HAVE_STDINT_H?
Isn't HAVE_STDINT_H a C99 thing? C89 doesn't seem to mention it. > Or, I suppose we could consider assuming an unsigned long is large > enough to hold a pointer, and eschew the use of uintptr_t. We used to do exactly that, but it doesn't work on Win64.
