On Oct 21, 2014 6:11 AM, "Aaron Ballman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Like I said, it's a weak preference. ;-) However, "it makes it easier > >> to do nonstandard things" isn't really a ringing endorsement for > >> making this change be consistent with GCC in my book. At the end of > >> the day, there's int8_t and uint8_t definitions, which do the standard > >> thing, and don't require messes (that I'm aware of). > > > > > > That's circular; our own stdint.h uses __UINT_* to define those types. > > My point is that it doesn't have to -- those can be defined entirely > using standard fundamental types. However, I would agree that using > the fundamental types could make this file considerably more messy, > and this is information the compiler already has on hand.
The fundamental sized types *come from this file*. Either stdlibs guess the fundamental types using configure, or they ask the compiler (or the compiler plays games with include_next, where it may do the same trick of asking itself). These macros allow one to ask the compiler.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
