Bug#766380: marked as done (UINT64_C should not be defined in C++)
Your message dated Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:12:26 +0200
with message-id <CA+7wUsx1Cv+wSon7AT55uDcq+v1LK6+oQ4A1MFSAgnWq63a+8A@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#766380: UINT64_C should not be defined in C++
has caused the Debian Bug report #766380,
regarding UINT64_C should not be defined in C++
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
766380: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=766380
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.19-11
Severity: important
ISO C99 standard (7.18.4) specifies that C++ implementations should
define UINT64_C only when
__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS is defined.
On wheezy:
$ g++ t.cxx
t.cxx: In function ‘int main()’:
t.cxx:6:26: error: ‘UINT64_C’ was not declared in this scope
On sid:
$ g++ t.cxx
-> no error
With:
$ cat t.cxx
//#define __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS
#include <stdint.h>
int main()
{
uint64_t t = UINT64_C(0);
return 0;
}
This is a regression, therefore using severity important.
Thx
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: tags -1 wontfix
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> control: severity -1 normal
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 06:53:49PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>> Package: libc6-dev
>> Version: 2.19-11
>> Severity: important
>>
>> ISO C99 standard (7.18.4) specifies that C++ implementations should
>> define UINT64_C only when
>> __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS is defined.
>
> C99 is an old standard... This has been explicitly overruled in the C++11
> standard, and as a consequence C11 has removed this rule.
>
> You can find more details there: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15366
>
> I therefore don't think it's a bug.
Point taken, I wasn't aware of the update. Thanks for the clarification !
--- End Message ---
Reply to: