Hi Uwe (and Jifl) Uwe Kindler wrote:
> to get this right - you would like to keep the original uSTL #if ... > definitions in the uSTL source instead of my #if defined ... changes and > to define the macros to 0 in config.h so that the changes to uSTL > source are kept to a minimum and most of the changes are in eCos > specific config.h file? But you would prefer to see my #if defined ... > changes in the official uSTL tree of Mike Sharov? Yes. The official uSTL tree would ideally build silently with "-Wundef" but if that isn't going to happen then the "#define HAVE_INT64_T 0" route seems better than making a lot of changes in the eCos version of the uSTL sources. >> I agree. Option 1 seems best. At some point in the future, C99 >> vsnprintf() behaviour can become the default. > > O.k., i will provide a patch. Thank you. >> You may find that there are so many dependencies that this makes no >> sense, but it is worth investigating. > > I already tried this but it is hard to track all dependencies. Therefore > I would propose the following strategy: > > Step 1: > If I implemented all of your change requests the uSTL library goes into > the eCos CVS > > Step 2: > If the uSTL library is in the eCos CVS it can be optimized by me or by > other users by making the package more configurable. I'm OK with this approach. Adding the extra configury is an optimisation. > A last question. The uSTL eCos package contains a stdint.h file because > eCos libc does not provide one. Would you prefer to see this file in the > libc library or should it stay in uSTL package. stdint.h is a C99 header. Adding it seems harmless to me, but to what extent should we continue to add C99 features piecemeal to the existing eCos C library which is based on C89? Is there a specific version of stdint.h that would be preferable to ensure maximum compatibility? I would like to hear Jifl's opinion on this. Jifl? John Dallaway
