Re: [cc65] Arrays of structs

From: Groepaz <>
Date: 2005-08-16 23:47:14
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 20:49, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 06:09:20PM +0200, Groepaz wrote:
> > ok, another great excuse for me to not use them :=)
> Well, the types aren't as useless as they seem to be. Note the last
> sentence:
>   "However, if an implementation provides integer types with widths of 8,
> 16, 32, or 64 bits, it shall define the corresponding typedef names."
> So, *if* the implementation has an unsigned integer type with 8 bits, it
> must supply an uint8_t type. If you're using this uint8_t type and your
> software doesn't compile, this means that there is no such type and your
> program won't run anyway. Which in turn means that one should only use
> uint8_t if it's an absolute requirement to have a datatype with exactly 8
> bits. Otherwise it's better to use uint_least8_t, which has at least 8 bits
> and is a required type.

mmmh ok, not so great excuse then :) i still prefer my u8/u16/u32 types, i'm 
lazy with typing :=)


Eine wirklich gute Idee erkennt man daran, dass ihre Verwirklichung von vorne 
herein ausgeschlossen erscheint. 
<Albert Einstein>

To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Tue Aug 16 23:47:44 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-16 23:47:47 CEST