On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 01:41:35PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> >> > I wanna do this, looks good?
> >>
> >> It should probably use double wings:
> >>
> >> > -#ifndef int8_t
> >> > +#ifndef _BSD_INT8_T_
> >>
> >>+#ifndef __BSD_INT8_T__
> >
> > In terms of
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:43:49AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 23:20:16 +0100, Rhialto wrote:
>
> > On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 23:19:08 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > > Also your change breaks redefining intN_t types with the preprocessor.
> > > E.g.
> > >
> > >
On 09.11.2018 12:17, Klaus Klein wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:08:04AM +, David Holland wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:07:16PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> > I wanna do this, looks good?
>>
>> It should probably use double wings:
>>
>> > -#ifndef int8_t
>> > +#ifndef
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:08:04AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:07:16PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> > I wanna do this, looks good?
>
> It should probably use double wings:
>
> > -#ifndef int8_t
> > +#ifndef _BSD_INT8_T_
>
>+#ifndef __BSD_INT8_T__
In
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:11:03AM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
> } -#ifndef int8_t
> } +#ifndef _BSD_INT8_T_
> } typedef __int8_tint8_t;
> } -#define int8_t __int8_t
> } +#define _BSD_INT8_T_
> } #endif
>
> What's going to define _BSD_INT8_T_ and friends?
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:07:16PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> I wanna do this, looks good?
It should probably use double wings:
> -#ifndef int8_t
> +#ifndef _BSD_INT8_T_
+#ifndef __BSD_INT8_T__
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.org
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 23:20:16 +0100, Rhialto wrote:
> On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 23:19:08 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > Also your change breaks redefining intN_t types with the preprocessor.
> > E.g.
> >
> > #define uint32_t unsigned long long
> > #include
> >
> > is now broken with
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 23:19:08 +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> Also your change breaks redefining intN_t types with the preprocessor.
> E.g.
>
> #define uint32_t unsigned long long
> #include
>
> is now broken with your change.
But should that really be allowed? I haven't got the
[I missed this thread, so I'm reposting my reply that I originally
sent to source-changes-d]
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 16:38:06 +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:11:03AM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:07pm, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> > }
> > } I wanna do this, looks
On 06.11.2018 16:07, co...@sdf.org wrote:
> I wanna do this, looks good?
>
This looks good to me!
> Index: stdint.h
> ===
> RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/sys/stdint.h,v
> retrieving revision 1.7
> diff -u -r1.7 stdint.h
> --- stdint.h
I wanna do this, looks good?
Index: stdint.h
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/src/sys/sys/stdint.h,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.7 stdint.h
--- stdint.h22 Apr 2013 21:26:48 - 1.7
+++ stdint.h4 Nov 2018 09:35:54 -
On Sep 9, 8:43am, dholland-t...@netbsd.org (David Holland) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Definitions of types also as macros
| How many headers are these (uint32_t etc. in this case) actually
| supposed to be defined in? The definitions are in both sys/stdint.h
| (which is also stdint.h) and sys
On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 11:48:57PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> The problem is that these are defined in multiple headers and
> typedef redefinition with the same type is a c11 feature, so the
> define protects against that. Of course one can use a different
> macro and this was done
In article ,
Christos Zoulas wrote:
>In article <20180908230813.ga22...@sdf.org>, wrote:
>>we do this in stdint.h and some other headers:
>>
>>#ifndef uint32_t
>>typedef __uint32_t uint32_t;
>>#define uint32_t__uint32_t
>>#endif
>>
>>
>>Real-world examples:
In article <20180908230813.ga22...@sdf.org>, wrote:
>we do this in stdint.h and some other headers:
>
>#ifndef uint32_t
>typedef __uint32_t uint32_t;
>#define uint32_t__uint32_t
>#endif
>
>
>Real-world examples:
15 matches
Mail list logo