>> But it failed to fully correct the error >> because, at least with gcc's implementation of stdint.h, only 8,16,32, >> and 64 are provided.
>These cover the needs of virtually everyone in virtually all cases. --a bold claim, made with zero evidence presented. But since we know that even 40 years ago, PASCAL felt the need to provide packed boolean arrays, we know that 8-64 failed to cover the needs of "virtually everyone in virtually all cases." Looks to me like you just make stuff up. My claim is: if you build it, they will come. People will like the fact that gcc provides a little more than the bare minimum it is allowed to provide. Also, I'm somewhat amazed how it is argued to me that a 9-bit machine the PDP-10 is covered by C fine, but yet, C insists on having everything a multiple of 8 bits with padding bits disallowed, and that too is fine, and both these facts refute me. Oh. I've tried to make my critics argue against themselves by giving examples where their statements contradict decisions they already made to put X into GCC, but those examples just appears to be ignored by you all. Obviously you feel that you yourselves back when you made the decision to add X, were being an idiot. Which is strange, but makes it clear it ultimately is not I who it criticizing you, it is you who are criticizing you. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
