Re: [bug-gperf] unsigned long vs. unsigned int

[Bruno Haible]

Sei Lisa wrote:
> Is compatibility with C standards < C99 an issue?
> 
> C99 introduces uint_fast32_t via stdint.h, which would be perfect for the
> task. It's not an optional type like uint32_t and others, it's mandatory.

It would be a good idea to use uint_fast32_t, if we could rely on it
everywhere.

But indeed, you hit the nail on the head: uint_fast32_t is not portable
enough [1], and gperf generated code should be usable without requiring
Autoconf macros - otherwise gperf makes the developer's life harder.

> Anyway, instead of a gperf option, it could be an overridable C macro in
> the output, like flex/bison do with YYLTYPE and similar.

This too would make the use of gperf harder.

Bruno

[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/stdint_002eh.html