Oh no it doesn't, I made a mistake. It has #if defined( _STDINT_H ) || defined ( _STDINT_H_ ) || defined ( _STDINT )
Bill. On 12 October 2012 20:28, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Oh no! Our mpirxx.h file also checks HAVE_STDINT_H > > This is defined in config.h too!! > > Bill. > > On 12 October 2012 20:24, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Yeah, I've just done it now. >> >> Bill. >> >> On 12 October 2012 20:23, Brian Gladman <b...@gladman.plus.com> wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- From: Bill Hart >>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18 PM >>> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com >>> >>> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released >>> >>> I think we should test if LLONG_MAX is defined. This actually doesn't >>> tell us if long long exists, but tells us if long long exists AND the >>> system long long's are fully c99 compliant. >>> >>> Then if LLONG_MAX is not defined but MAXINT_MAX is defined and not >>> equal to LONG_MAX, then we should define maxint_t function. >>> >>> I'll try this and see if it works. I think this is what is causing the >>> bug on the ia64 machine with gcc 4.1.2. >>> >>> =================== >>> >>> So all the HAVE_LONG_LONG in mpirxx.h need to be changed to test for >>> LLONG_MAX? >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "mpir-devel" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en. >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
