Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling

[Eric S. Raymond]

Hal Murray <address@hidden>:
> 
> 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?

They're optional in C99 but not in POSIX-2001 and descendants.  It's been
at least a decade since anyone shipped a C or C++ compiler without them.
We're considering them save for NTPsec; GPSD can, too.
-- 
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>