-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
[snip]
Going back to stdint.h, I think the assumption is that this needs to be
included by the user before the mpirxx.h include so we should not include
it
in mpirxx.h
But we can't do this on systems which don't support stdint.h. This was
not part of the standard before C99. Some systems before C99 partially
implement it, e.g. MSVC.
======================================
So we can't 'not include it' - i.e. you believe that we must include it - I
am now completely confused.
On Windows the C++ header for LLONG_MAX is <climits> - I am surprised that
this doesn't exist on *nix.
It exists, but is only partially implemented before c++0x compliant gcc.
That is also true of <cstdint> on Windows which was not available before
MSVC 10.
I have a feeling we need to go back to some underlying principles here.
So for a start, intmax_t and uintmax_t on Windows are defined in stdint.h
(C) or cstdint (C++) and they can only be used on MSVC10 and later. They
can be detected by looking for the stdint.h guard _STDINT which can hence be
used to remove code and tests of these types.
I agree with your concern about config.h and HAVE_? defines in user code so
we need an alternative way of guarding code and tests where these are used.
Brian
Bill.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
