Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   C++ (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f39-c.html)
-   -   intptr_t (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t455974-intptr_t.html)

king 08-07-2006 06:33 AM

intptr_t
 
Isn't intptr_t part of the latest ISO C++?
It is part of the C99 standard but C++? Has any new standard for C++
after C++ 2003 which is almost same as C++98 published?
Which are the compilers that supports it completely?

on gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) I dont get any error when using
intptr_t even after specifying -std=c89

http://www.informit.com/guides/conte...eqNum=223&rl=1

Is any new standard for C published after C99?


Ian Collins 08-07-2006 06:57 AM

Re: intptr_t
 
king wrote:
> Isn't intptr_t part of the latest ISO C++?
> It is part of the C99 standard but C++? Has any new standard for C++
> after C++ 2003 which is almost same as C++98 published?
> Which are the compilers that supports it completely?
>

No, the 3003 update was corrections.

> on gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) I dont get any error when using
> intptr_t even after specifying -std=c89
>

That's probably because intptr_t is defined in common system headers,
used for both C and C++ compilations.

--
Ian Collins.

king 08-07-2006 08:12 AM

Re: intptr_t
 
So Does C++ has intptr_t?
Ian Collins wrote:
> king wrote:
> > Isn't intptr_t part of the latest ISO C++?
> > It is part of the C99 standard but C++? Has any new standard for C++
> > after C++ 2003 which is almost same as C++98 published?
> > Which are the compilers that supports it completely?
> >

> No, the 3003 update was corrections.
>
> > on gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) I dont get any error when using
> > intptr_t even after specifying -std=c89
> >

> That's probably because intptr_t is defined in common system headers,
> used for both C and C++ compilations.
>
> --
> Ian Collins.



Ian Collins 08-07-2006 08:34 AM

Re: intptr_t
 
king wrote:
> So Does C++ has intptr_t?

Please don't top post.

No, C99 does and so does either your OS or compiler headers.

--
Ian Collins.

Kai-Uwe Bux 08-07-2006 08:35 AM

Re: intptr_t
 
king wrote:
[top-posting corrected]
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> king wrote:
>> > Isn't intptr_t part of the latest ISO C++?
>> > It is part of the C99 standard but C++? Has any new standard for C++
>> > after C++ 2003 which is almost same as C++98 published?
>> > Which are the compilers that supports it completely?
>> >

>> No, the 3003 update was corrections.
>>
>> > on gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) I dont get any error when using
>> > intptr_t even after specifying -std=c89
>> >

>> That's probably because intptr_t is defined in common system headers,
>> used for both C and C++ compilations.
>>
>> --
>> Ian Collins.

>
> So Does C++ has intptr_t?


a) please don't top-post.
b) please do not quote signatures.
c) no.


Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

P.J. Plauger 08-07-2006 10:53 AM

Re: intptr_t
 
"king" <nikanth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154938333.337700.57230@m79g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

> So Does C++ has intptr_t?


Only as part of TR1, which is a non-normative addition. But
it has also been voted into the next release of the C++
Standard. (You can also get intptr)t with C++ as part of
our latest library, FWIW.)

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.