Am Dienstag, den 02.12.2014, 14:47 -0500 schrieb Rich Felker:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 08:23:18PM +0100, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > > Indeed, but 0U would be a much nicer way of writing it.
> > 
> > But this would be wrong on platforms with 16 bit int, no?
> 
> POSIX requires int to be at least 32 bits.

ah right, and since we heavily rely on linux we don't assume that we
will ever run on a non-POSIX platform

> > > Also I'm wondering why I have wint_t in the arch-specific
> > > alltypes.h.in files if stdint.h is assuming the type is
> > > unsigned/32-bit, and it actually is for all archs. Perhaps we should
> > > move it into the shared part of alltypes.h.in?
> > 
> > don't we have archs with 16 bit int?
> 
> No. And we don't have archs with int > 32 bits either because too much
> would break with no practical benefits. (For example, uint32_t would
> be smaller than int and thus would be subject to default promotions,
> UB on overflow, etc. and there would be no way to get either a 16-bit
> type or a 32-bit type without extended integer types.)
> 
> > but right, even then we could move it up and define it as uint32_t
> 
> That would not work directly, as wint_t is exposed in places that
> don't expose uint32_t.

So that's probably the reason why it is burried in the arch specific
stuff. So I see two solutions

 - have it as I did, be symmetric, and burry it in the arch specific
   files

 - have it in one place, but then bluntly use unsigned, UINT_MAX and 0U

I have no personal preference for any of that.

Jens


-- 
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: AlGorille ::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536   ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183   ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::