3 ms·
But they've identified this as for systems based programming where you don't have any guarantee of stdint.h holding true (POSIX compliance). Their implementati
by cmdkeen 14y ago
But they've identified this as for systems based programming where you don't have any guarantee of stdint.h holding true (POSIX compliance).
Their implementation is much more flexible. Albeit slightly reinventing the wheel.
- alexchamberlain 14y agoI can see what you mean, but stdint.h is just a bunch of typedefs stardardising the naming scheme. It doesn't take much work to sort it out.
- simias 14y agoIndeed, linux uses u32 and friends for instance. It's really not much of a problem in practice (kernels are by definition very hardware dependent anyway...)
- cube13 14y agoIf you're doing systems level programming, you shouldn't be counting on anything being portable anyway. Reimplementing it is worthless for projects are on a single OS. If you're implementing the OS, then these decisions need to be made anyway, independent of the language. You should be coding to(or with) the OS you're working on. If you're doing multiplatform stuff, then #defines with a naming scheme work, and are already the standard practice.