Re: [boost] Review: Config system

From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-30 16:33:20

John Maddock wrote:
> > - Regarding <stdint.h>:  Please read my detailed comments
> >at the beginning of boost/stdint.h why I had serious trouble
> >with Linux' <stdint.h>.
> 
> I'm still not sure that I completely understand the issue - does this code
> work with non-gcc compilers on linux or not?

I believe it does, but  I never tried.

>  What are the remaining issues
> if any? 

It tries to introduce names into the global namespace
(such as int32_t) which, under ISO C99, are to be introduced
by the standard <stdint.h>.  However, some C libraries have
weird include orders / dependencies, so there might be a
C library without a <stdint.h>, but with an int32_t from a
different header.  When boost/stdint.h comes along, we have
a potential clash.

>   but what about cstdint.hpp -
> shouldn't that work now (with BOOST_HAS_STDINT_H defined)? 

boost/cstdint.hpp should work, and it no longer relies
on boost/stdint.h, which is a good thing.  If you believe
your <stdint.h> is complete, go ahead and define
BOOST_HAS_STDINT_H (dependent on the library version,
please).

>   The version I
> have on Suse linux looks complete to me - what have I missed?

On some versions of glibc, there are slightly different
#ifdef rules whether int64_t gets defined or not in various
header files.  I got a clash with a certain include order
from that.

Jens Maurer