On Tuesday 16 August 2005 18:04, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:51:40PM +0200, Groepaz wrote: > > mmmh doesnt C99 even define some standard types (uint8) for that? > > From ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E), 7.18.1.1 "Exact-width integer types": > > 1 The typedef name intN_t designates a signed integer type with width N, > no padding bits, and a two s complement representation. Thus, int8_t > denotes a signed integer type with a width of exactly 8 bits. > > 2 The typedef name uintN_t designates an unsigned integer type with width > N. Thus, uint24_t denotes an unsigned integer type with a width of exactly > 24 bits. > > 3 These types are optional. However, if an implementation provides > integer types with widths of 8, 16, 32, or 64 bits, it shall define the > corresponding typedef names. > > Please note the word "optional" in the standard:-) *yawn* :=P ok, another great excuse for me to not use them :=) -- http://www.hitmen-console.org http://www.gc-linux.org/docs/yagcd.html http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org When animal-rights activists and right-to-life protesters are marching outside your laboratory, then you know you've definitely made progress in your artificial life research. <Donald A. Smith> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Tue Aug 16 18:09:30 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-16 18:09:32 CEST