[prototype-PATCH] Change CARDXX and INTXX defines to use stdint.h

[Maarten Maathuis]

On 1/17/08, Eamon Walsh <ewalsh at tycho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> Peter Harris wrote:
> > Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> >
> >> An inconsistent CARD32 has been bothering me for some time (for printf
> >> alike functions you get warnings on some arches), so i propose
> >> switching the defines to using stdint. I have a few questions though:
> >>
> >> 1: What is the purpose of UNSIGNEDBITFIELDS?
> >>
> >
> > To support older platforms where B16 and B32 are required, but signed
> > bitfields are not permitted.
> >
> >
> >> 2: What is the purpose of B32 and B16?
> >>
> >
> > To support platforms (older Cray? Embedded DSP-like CPUs?) that do not
> > have a native 16 or 32-bit integer.
> >
>
> The XCB folks have already dropped support for this on the client side:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/2007-March/002635.html
>
>
> >
> >> I attached a patch against x11proto, which i used on my x86_64 system
> >> to compile the xserver with (i did not recompile anything for testing
> >> ABI compatibility).
> >>
> >> What do other people have to say about this?
> >>
>
> There is an autoconf macro AX_CREATE_STDINT_H that claims to manufacture
> one of these files for you if you don't have it:
> http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/ax_create_stdint_h.html
>
> >
> > stdint.h is a C99ism. As far as I know, the reference x11proto still
> > targets C89.
> >
> > If you were to only include and use stdint.h on platforms that are known
> > to have a working C99 environment, that would be a much safer change.
> >
> >  > +/* Why is INT8 always signed? */
> >
> > Unlike INT16 and INT32, INT8 is not ever used in conjunction with B16 or
> > B32, so it doesn't need to be unsigned when UNSIGNEDBITFIELDS is set.
> >
> > Peter Harris
> >
>
>
> --
> Eamon Walsh <ewalsh at tycho.nsa.gov>
> National Security Agency
>
>

I'm all for removing unused cruft, but i wonder, what hardware uses
UNSIGNEDBITFIELDS? Is it even used in this day and age?