Best Multi-Platform Way to Define Standard Types Such as UINT32

[David T. Ashley]

I'm writing code which will compile on multiple Windows and multiple *nix
platforms. Some will have 64-bit integers, I believe.

What is my best option to define platform-independent types such as UINT32
or UINT64? I'm not sure how to sort out the various platforms and integer
sizes, and some of it may even vary based on compiler options.

Thanks
--
David T. Ashley (dt*@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)

[Ian Collins]

David T. Ashley wrote:

I'm writing code which will compile on multiple Windows and multiple *nix
platforms. Some will have 64-bit integers, I believe.

What is my best option to define platform-independent types such as UINT32
or UINT64? I'm not sure how to sort out the various platforms and integer
sizes, and some of it may even vary based on compiler options.

Probably a good place to start would be <stdint.hon one of the 64 bit
capable systems. I think you should use the standard types, rather than
redefining them in caps.

--
Ian Collins.

[David T. Ashley]

"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:52******** *****@mid.indiv idual.net...

David T. Ashley wrote:

>I'm writing code which will compile on multiple Windows and multiple *nix
platforms. Some will have 64-bit integers, I believe.

What is my best option to define platform-independent types such as
UINT32
or UINT64? I'm not sure how to sort out the various platforms and
integer
sizes, and some of it may even vary based on compiler options.

Probably a good place to start would be <stdint.hon one of the 64 bit
capable systems. I think you should use the standard types, rather than
redefining them in caps.

Thanks for that info. I looked up this file (<stdint.h>) on my Linux box,
and it is just what I was looking for.

However, I also have Microsoft Visual C++. I couldn't find <stdint.hin
the include directory, so just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I
searched Microsoft's site by "stdint.h" and got no matches.

I think the Microsoft tool chain doesn't have such a file. It isn't clear
what to do, because even Windows will run on some 64-bit platforms.

Suggestions?

Dave.
--
David T. Ashley (dt*@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)

[jacob navia]

David T. Ashley a écrit :

"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:52******** *****@mid.indiv idual.net...

>>David T. Ashley wrote:

>>>I'm writing code which will compile on multiple Windows and multiple *nix
platforms. Some will have 64-bit integers, I believe.

What is my best option to define platform-independent types such as
UINT32
or UINT64? I'm not sure how to sort out the various platforms and
integer
sizes, and some of it may even vary based on compiler options.

Probably a good place to start would be <stdint.hon one of the 64 bit
capable systems. I think you should use the standard types, rather than
redefining them in caps.

Thanks for that info. I looked up this file (<stdint.h>) on my Linux box,
and it is just what I was looking for.

However, I also have Microsoft Visual C++. I couldn't find <stdint.hin
the include directory, so just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I
searched Microsoft's site by "stdint.h" and got no matches.

I think the Microsoft tool chain doesn't have such a file. It isn't clear
what to do, because even Windows will run on some 64-bit platforms.

Suggestions?

Dave.

Yes. Just copy your linux stdint.h to your Microsoft installation...

NOT very difficult. stdint.h is standard C. Microsoft dpesn't always
comply with it but this is easy to follow.

Of course you should remember that in 64 bit microsoft environment,
long is 32 bits and under 64 bit linux it is 64 bits. The file would
need at most a small editing change.

[Nelu]

David T. Ashley <dt*@e3ft.comwr ote:

I'm writing code which will compile on multiple Windows and multiple *nix
platforms. Some will have 64-bit integers, I believe.

There are standard types defined in stdint.h, although the header is
available only in C99: uint32/64_t and uint_least32/64_t
--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

David T. Ashley a écrit :

>"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotma il.comwrote in message
news:52******* ******@mid.indi vidual.net...

>>David T. Ashley wrote:

I'm writing code which will compile on multiple Windows and multiple
*nix
platforms. Some will have 64-bit integers, I believe.

What is my best option to define platform-independent types such as
UINT32
or UINT64? I'm not sure how to sort out the various platforms and
integer
sizes, and some of it may even vary based on compiler options.
Probably a good place to start would be <stdint.hon one of the 64 bit
capable systems. I think you should use the standard types, rather than
redefining them in caps.

Thanks for that info. I looked up this file (<stdint.h>) on my Linux
box, and it is just what I was looking for.

However, I also have Microsoft Visual C++. I couldn't find <stdint.h>
in the include directory, so just to be sure I wasn't missing
something, I searched Microsoft's site by "stdint.h" and got no matches.

I think the Microsoft tool chain doesn't have such a file. It isn't
clear what to do, because even Windows will run on some 64-bit platforms.

Yes. Just copy your linux stdint.h to your Microsoft installation...

NOT very difficult. stdint.h is standard C. Microsoft dpesn't always
comply with it but this is easy to follow.

Of course you should remember that in 64 bit microsoft environment,
long is 32 bits and under 64 bit linux it is 64 bits. The file would
need at most a small editing change.

Although not standardised, _LLP64 (windows) and _LP64 (just about
everyone else) macros can and often are used to define the memory model
used on 64 bit platforms.

--
Ian Collins.

[Ulrich Eckhardt]

David T. Ashley wrote:

I looked up this file (<stdint.h>) on my Linux
box, and it is just what I was looking for.

However, I also have Microsoft Visual C++. I couldn't find <stdint.hin
the include directory, so just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I
searched Microsoft's site by "stdint.h" and got no matches.

Take a look at Boost[1]. While it's mainly a C++ library, it also has a
compatibility module for platforms lacking explicitly sized integers. If
it doesn't already work for C, you will probably be able to easily make it
work.

One thing though, which wasn't brought up yet: it is best to avoid such
types. Depending on the context, it might be necessary though.

Uli

[1] www.boost.org

[Ian Collins]

Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:

David T. Ashley wrote:

>>I looked up this file (<stdint.h>) on my Linux
box, and it is just what I was looking for.

However, I also have Microsoft Visual C++. I couldn't find <stdint.hin
the include directory, so just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I
searched Microsoft's site by "stdint.h" and got no matches.

Take a look at Boost[1]. While it's mainly a C++ library, it also has a
compatibility module for platforms lacking explicitly sized integers. If
it doesn't already work for C, you will probably be able to easily make it
work.

One thing though, which wasn't brought up yet: it is best to avoid such
types. Depending on the context, it might be necessary though.

Why should they be avoided?

--
Ian Collins.

[CBFalconer]

"David T. Ashley" wrote:

"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotma il.comwrote:

>David T. Ashley wrote:

>>I'm writing code which will compile on multiple Windows and
multiple *nix platforms. Some will have 64-bit integers, I
believe.

What is my best option to define platform-independent types such
as UINT32 or UINT64? I'm not sure how to sort out the various
platforms and integer sizes, and some of it may even vary based
on compiler options.

Probably a good place to start would be <stdint.hon one of the
64 bit capable systems. I think you should use the standard
types, rather than redefining them in caps.

Thanks for that info. I looked up this file (<stdint.h>) on my
Linux box, and it is just what I was looking for.

However, I also have Microsoft Visual C++. I couldn't find
<stdint.hin the include directory, so just to be sure I wasn't
missing something, I searched Microsoft's site by "stdint.h" and
got no matches.

I think the Microsoft tool chain doesn't have such a file. It
isn't clear what to do, because even Windows will run on some
64-bit platforms.

It doesn't exist under C90, only under C99. However limits.h
exists under both, so you could make your decisions based on the
values in that.

Most of the world has at least partially implemented C99, but
Microsoft is following its usual practice of undermining
standards. Just don't use any Microsoft software.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:10:28 +0100, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:

>David T. Ashley a écrit :

>However, I also have Microsoft Visual C++. I couldn't find <stdint.hin
the include directory, so just to be sure I wasn't missing something, I
searched Microsoft's site by "stdint.h" and got no matches.

Just copy your linux stdint.h to your Microsoft installation...

This may or may not achieve anything, depending on how stdint.h
defines the types. You may also end up copying several other headers.
Some of these may contain architecture-specific details which simply
aren't portable, and you'll either end up with incorrect definitions,
or definitions which surprise you.

Generally headers are _not_ portable between implementations .

>Of course you should remember that in 64 bit microsoft environment,
long is 32 bits and under 64 bit linux it is 64 bits. The file would
need at most a small editing change.

In my view, that sorta defeats the point. If you know the widths, then
you could just define the whole lot yourself in a private header with
a bunch of #ifs

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan