Rick C. Hodgin
Written out more than once. In the program I tried, it had them in the
source code of the test program. There are also used elsewhere so they
must be written out on at least one more place.
I wrote SHA-1 to be a stand-alone program if _TEST_ME is defined, and
an #include file if _TEST_ME is not defined. The reason you see the
duplication is for when the program is compiled as a stand-alone. I
did this because I offered up that code into the public domain, as I
received it. Were it part of my library, it would use the common
definition. The same is true for some other stand-alone utility
programs I wrote.
Yes. Someone who knows all that needs to be know to get the definitions
right. And they do that once for all the thousands of developers who
use the definitions.
Now I've installed some cross-compilers. And rather than simply running
xcc or ycc or zcc to get it to compile something with its built in
features, now I'm worrying about whether or not my include paths are
setup correctly for each, because xcc needs \xcc\include\ and ycc needs
\ycc\include\ and zcc needs \zcc\include\, and so on. The stdint.h in
the wrong place causes the code to fail. Wouldn't happen if the
definition were inside of xcc, ycc, and zcc natively.
If you think this is the same as just writing out your own wherever they
are needed, well, I must bite my tongue.
Your estimation would be wrong, then.
Sorry to hear that.
You've never heard of Fortran, Pascal, C++, Ada, Haskell or Python?
Or did you just not know enough about them to know what the various
standard say about the fundamental types?
I consider C and C++ to be basically the same in this regard, so they
are already accounted for. I've never used Fortran. I've used Pascal,
but don't remember variable sizes (only used it in college because that's
what they offered). Never used Ada, Haskell, or Python (apart from
downloading programs which were already written which did something, and
then just running those, never editing).
Rick C. Hodgin