Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 01/10/2010 12:39 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why do you say the effective type is different?
>>>>
>>> The object type is uint8_t, but accessed as uint32_t. That is
>>> undefined.
>>>
>>
>> Unless uint8_t is a character type, as I understand it. That is
>> clearly the assumption on which the code relies.
>>
> But in the new compilers it's an integer type, not a character
> type--from the spec:
It's a typedef at the top of the sample code:
> typedef unsigned char uint8_t;
The example doesn't rely on any headers.
cheers,
DaveK
