[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling
From: |
Hal Murray |
Subject: |
Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:47:04 -0700 |
address@hidden said:
> Interesting. Been a while since I dug out the C99 standard. I had assumed
> char was always signed, but C99 Section 6.2.5 15) clearly sates a char may
> be either the same as signed char or as unsigned char.
> I had been thinking that since fiexed width type (uint88_t, etc.) are in C99
> we should use those instead. But I see in C99 7.1.1.1 3 that fixed width
> types are optional. I don't recall that ever causing us trouble.
So what do I do if I want a signed 8 bit int? How would you have fixed this
if the ARM was wrong?
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, (continued)
Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Gary E. Miller, 2016/04/20
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Eric S. Raymond, 2016/04/20
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Paul Fertser, 2016/04/21
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Gary E. Miller, 2016/04/21
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling,
Hal Murray <=
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Gary E. Miller, 2016/04/21
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Eric S. Raymond, 2016/04/21
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Hal Murray, 2016/04/21
- Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Eric S. Raymond, 2016/04/21
Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling, Gary E. Miller, 2016/04/21