intptr_t standard?

[nikanth]

Isn't intptr_t part of the latest ISO C++?
It is part of the C99 standard but C++? Has any new standard for C++
after C++ 2003 which is almost same as C++98 published?
Which are the compilers that supports it completely?

on gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) I dont get any error when using
intptr_t even after specifying -std=c89

http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=cplusplus&seqNum=223&rl=1

Is any new standard for C published after C99?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

(e-mail address removed) said:

[OT stuff snipped]

on gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) I dont get any error when using
intptr_t even after specifying -std=c89

A diagnostic is required - and gcc gives one when invoked in conforming
mode:

foo.c:8: `intptr_t' undeclared (first use in this function)

Is any new standard for C published after C99?

Not yet. Give them time.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Isn't intptr_t part of the latest ISO C++?
It is part of the C99 standard but C++? Has any new standard for C++
after C++ 2003 which is almost same as C++98 published?
Which are the compilers that supports it completely?

We don't know. This is comp.lang.c. comp.lang.c++ is down the hall,
third door on the left, just past the water cooler.

on gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 (SuSE Linux) I dont get any error when using
intptr_t even after specifying -std=c89

http://www.informit.com/guides/content.asp?g=cplusplus&seqNum=223&rl=1

intptr_t is defined in <stdint.h>, which is a new standard header in
C99. As far as C89/C90 is concerned, <stdint.h> is a non-standard
header; #including it and using declarations from it doesn't warrant a
warning any more than using any other non-standard header.

Is any new standard for C published after C99?

There's not a full standard, but there have been two Technical
Corrigenda. A version of the C99 standard with TC1 and TC2 merged
into it is freely available as n1124.pdf (Google it).