Re: cdb++ on a 64-bit machine?

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:

> > typedef unsigned long uint32;
>
> Why do people always invent their own constant types when most systems
> already provide for uint32_t in <inttypes.h>?

Sort of. The correct header is actually <stdint.h> (though inttypes.h is
guaranteed by POSIX to include stdint.h). <stdint.h> is POSIX and C99
compliant, but not C89 (I don't believe -- no copy of the standard
handy).

I believe this portability is why DJB chose to use his own compile-time
tests for defining uint32 in the original cdb package (and his other
pakcages that use cdb).

However, you're correct that not using *either* method (either the
compiler provided type or determining it at compile time) is
inexcusable.

-Peff