This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the newlib project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Provide __intmax_t and __uintmax_t

Hi Sebastian,

On Oct 10 08:43, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Provide __intmax_t and __uintmax_t via <machine/_default_types> for
> FreeBSD compatibility.
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Huber <>
> ---
>  newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h b/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h
> index ffc646d..eaa6cec 100644
> --- a/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h
> +++ b/newlib/libc/include/machine/_default_types.h
> @@ -211,6 +211,15 @@ typedef long __intptr_t;
>  typedef unsigned long __uintptr_t;
>  #endif
> +#ifdef __INTMAX_TYPE__
> +typedef __INTMAX_TYPE__ __intmax_t;
> +#ifdef __UINTMAX_TYPE__
> +typedef __UINTMAX_TYPE__ __uintmax_t;
> +#else
> +typedef unsigned __INTMAX_TYPE__ __uintmax_t;
> +#endif
> +#endif
> +

This doesn't match the definition of the non-underscored intmax_t and
uintmax_t from stdint.h.  Is that intentional?  If not, wouldn't it
make sense to align the definitions?  Or better, let's define __intmax_t
and __uintmax_t in machine/_default_types.h according to the current
definition in stdint.h and then use __intmax_t/__uintmax_t to define


Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]