13-06-2016, 10:05 AM
Thanks for the reply, but:
1. Still the use of cstdint types is only advisory. The same problem exists for all built-in types, so why bool should be different? The use of typedefs for bool, could be advisory as well (if that's the intention).
2. The rationale in this section, referes only to meaningless and therfore error-prone. The use of sizeof is not meaningless.
3. The portability of types can be verified with static_assert (or otherwise equivalent implementations of it).
By not addressing this issue directly in the standard, it becomes easier for me to ignore it as an advisory or overlooked.
As I do take meaures to avoid copmiler differences, where it might affect our S/W, my problem is that the rule for this in the static analysis tool we use, makes it harder for me to spot what I consider the "real" violations of this rule.
1. Still the use of cstdint types is only advisory. The same problem exists for all built-in types, so why bool should be different? The use of typedefs for bool, could be advisory as well (if that's the intention).
2. The rationale in this section, referes only to meaningless and therfore error-prone. The use of sizeof is not meaningless.
3. The portability of types can be verified with static_assert (or otherwise equivalent implementations of it).
By not addressing this issue directly in the standard, it becomes easier for me to ignore it as an advisory or overlooked.
As I do take meaures to avoid copmiler differences, where it might affect our S/W, my problem is that the rule for this in the static analysis tool we use, makes it harder for me to spot what I consider the "real" violations of this rule.
<t></t>