Re: [PATCH] Add support for uintmax_t type on FreeBSD 4.9

["David Syzdek" <syzdek@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> "David M. Syzdek" <david.syzdek@acsalaska.net> writes:
>
> > This adds NO_UINTMAX_T for ancient systems. If NO_UINTMAX_T is defined, then
> > uintmax_t is defined as uint32_t. This adds a test to configure.ac for
> > uintmax_t and adds a check to the Makefile for FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY.
> > ...
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index 0d40f0e..bf6a6dc 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -931,6 +931,9 @@ endif
> >  ifdef NO_IPV6
> >       BASIC_CFLAGS += -DNO_IPV6
> >  endif
> > +ifdef NO_UINTMAX_T
> > +     BASIC_CFLAGS += -Duintmax_t=uint32_t
> > +endif
>
> I have a stupid question.
>
> Would it be a more appropriate improvement to do it like this:
>
>        ifdef USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T
>            BASIC_CFLAGS += -Duintmax_t="$(USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T)"
>        endif
>
> and then add a section for FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY like this:
>
>        ifeq ($(uname_R),4.9-SECURITY)
>                USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T = uint32_t
>        endif
>
> That way, an oddball 64-bit machine can use uint64_t here if it wants to,
> possibly including FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY backported to 64-bit ;-).
>

Your suggestion provides more flexibility for other environments. I
was making the assumption that 64-bit systems would define uintmax_t,
however in retrospect that would be unwise.
Would you like me to resubmit the patches with your modifications?


--
An earthquake wiped out Etchisketchistan today.
  -- Onion TV