Peter Maydell writes:
> On 12 July 2016 at 19:23, Eric Blake wrote:
>> This violates POSIX, which requires that:
>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/stdint.h.html#tag_13_48
>> "Each instance of these macros shall be replaced
On 07/12/2016 01:35 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> I tested this patch with a compile on OSX, and it does compile
> without warnings or errors. (NB: haven't tested that it
> fixes the warning that was being complained about in the
> other patchset.)
Ultimately, the combination of this patch plus the
On 12 July 2016 at 19:23, Eric Blake wrote:
> This violates POSIX, which requires that:
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/stdint.h.html#tag_13_48
> "Each instance of these macros shall be replaced by a constant
> expression suitable for use in #if
On 07/12/2016 09:21 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> C99 requires SIZE_MAX to be declared with the same type as the
> integral promotion of size_t, but OSX mistakenly defines it as
> an unsigned long long expression even though size_t is only
> unsigned long. Rather than futzing around with whether size_t