Hello List,

I see that intptr_t type is defined for all supported Unix that are not Linux.
Is there are reason why it was never declared for Linux ?

stdint.h is define it like so:
/* Types for `void *' pointers. */
#if __WORDSIZE == 64
# ifndef __intptr_t_defined
typedef long int intptr_t;
# define __intptr_t_defined
# endif
typedef unsigned long int uintptr_t;
#else
# ifndef __intptr_t_defined
typedef int intptr_t;
# define __intptr_t_defined
# endif
typedef unsigned int uintptr_t;
#endif

Thanks,

Ido

LINESIP - Opening the source for communication
http://www.linesip.com
http://www.linesip.co.il

In our previous episode, ik said:

I see that intptr_t type is defined for all supported Unix that are not Linux.

I guess this went to the wrong list. I can't find any intptr_t in e.g. the FreeBSD rtl.

Right, my bad.

I searched again and you are right:

 grep -in intptr_t ./* -R | grep -v svn
./netbsd/sysnr.inc:144:  { syscall: "sbrk" ret: "int" args: "intptr_t"  }
./netwlibc/libc.pp:127:   Pintptr_t = ^intptr_t;
./netwlibc/libc.pp:128:   intptr_t = longint;
./netwlibc/libc.pp:130:   Puintptr_t = ^uintptr_t;
./netwlibc/libc.pp:131:   uintptr_t = dword;
./netwlibc/libc.pp:782:function sbrk(incr:intptr_t):pointer;cdecl;external
libc_nlm name 'sbrk';
./solaris/ptypes.inc:129:    uintptr_t = ^cuint;

But why doesn't it included ?
It does exists on stdint.h and I can see that gcc C's preprocessor add it to final result.

Ido

_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

In our previous episode, ik said:

(hasn't been updated in 8 years, that is dead code)

netware and solaris remaining.

But why doesn't it included ? It does exists on stdint.h and I can see that gcc C's preprocessor add it to final result.

We add identifiers on a need-based basis, we don't vacuum the headers to find as many identifiers as possible.

And anyway, it is the c equivalent of ptrint which is a FPC system type.

To further compilate it, the upcoming 64-bit Delphi iirc will also call the equivalent intptr.

and ptrint, intptr and (c)intptr_t is a bit too much without very good reasons.

So, what do you need it for, and why can't you use simply ptrint?

I bind C code, and looked for it.
And I used PtrInt instead but was interested in understanding the reason why it's not there.

_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Ido

In our previous episode, ik said:

Ok. I justed asked, because all this is pretty much on the basis of conservative pragmatism.

If there are really heavy reasons (e.g. cases where C and Pascal typing differ), that is a new situation.