Support of C99 in VisualDSP++

Is VisualDSP++ natively supoort for ANSI C99 ?

Im using the types int8_t, uint16_t etc by including <stdint.h> still the compiler showing undifined ..

is any settings or configuration have to do in visualdsp++ ?

Parents
  • 0
    •  Analog Employees 
    on Dec 17, 2010 10:18 PM

    Vizi wrote:

    Is VisualDSP++ natively supoort for ANSI C99 ?

    Im using the types int8_t, uint16_t etc by including <stdint.h> still the compiler showing undifined ..

    I'm afraid the stdint.h header won't change in this regard with the upcoming C99 compiler support. The reason those types are not defined on SHARC is that SHARC is 32-bit word addressed. Therefore the smallest type available is 32 bits wide. The C99 standard requires the intN_t types to be exactly N bits wide though, hence they cannot be defined to wider types. Types that are available in stdint.h include int_leastN_t and int_fastN_t, for which the standard only requires a minimum width.

    If you don't want to replace uses of int8_t and other missing types, you might want to define them to 32-bit integer types yourself. Do keep in mind though that they will not have the same overflow behavior as implied by the standard.

Reply
  • 0
    •  Analog Employees 
    on Dec 17, 2010 10:18 PM

    Vizi wrote:

    Is VisualDSP++ natively supoort for ANSI C99 ?

    Im using the types int8_t, uint16_t etc by including <stdint.h> still the compiler showing undifined ..

    I'm afraid the stdint.h header won't change in this regard with the upcoming C99 compiler support. The reason those types are not defined on SHARC is that SHARC is 32-bit word addressed. Therefore the smallest type available is 32 bits wide. The C99 standard requires the intN_t types to be exactly N bits wide though, hence they cannot be defined to wider types. Types that are available in stdint.h include int_leastN_t and int_fastN_t, for which the standard only requires a minimum width.

    If you don't want to replace uses of int8_t and other missing types, you might want to define them to 32-bit integer types yourself. Do keep in mind though that they will not have the same overflow behavior as implied by the standard.

Children
No Data