C++ Logo

SG12

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Lawrence Crowl (Lawrence_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-28 00:15:44


On 10/18/13, Herb Sutter <hsutter_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> As a lesser step, it would be nice if we could at least make the stdint
> types non-optional. Perhaps this would be possible in the 21st century.

Some of the stdint types cannot be supported if either your machine
is not two's complement (Unisys) or does not have a power-of-two word
size (embedded).

> As a still lesser step, if then would it not at least be an improvement to
> make them conditionally supported instead of just optional?

What is the distinction?

>
> 18.4.1 in the current working draft has:
>
> typedef signed integer type int8_t; // optional
> typedef signed integer type int16_t; // optional
> typedef signed integer type int32_t; // optional
> typedef signed integer type int64_t; // optional
> typedef signed integer type intptr_t; // optional
> typedef unsigned integer type uint8_t; // optional
> typedef unsigned integer type uint16_t; // optional
> typedef unsigned integer type uint32_t; // optional
> typedef unsigned integer type uint64_t; // optional
> typedef unsigned integer type uintptr_t; // optional
>
> Does it really make sense for these to still be optional?

Until we make a bigger decision about the class of
machines that we support.

-- 
Lawrence Crowl

SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com