You mean allow the set of
u?int(8|16|32|64)_t
as alphtypes?
Only downside I can think of is that it requires an include. User would
need to do that, since there is no suitable write statement. I don't
like that aspect of it, but if it's the best solution for portability
then we should go with it.
On 13-11-25 07:47 PM, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 01:19:24 CEST, Adrian Thurston wrote:
Perhaps some explicit configure options specifying target architecture
is the way to go.
That breaks the goal of providing platform-agnostic release tarballs.
What drawbacks of using uint8_t etc do you see?
Jan
_______________________________________________
ragel-users mailing list
ragel-users@complang.org
http://www.complang.org/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users
