• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 21 subscribers
  • Views 4608 views
  • Users 0 members are here
2025 survey

We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.

Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

ARMCC and 64-bit unsigned integers...?

David Sudolcan

There's a knowledgebase article that was last reviewed on June 7, 2005 that says the CARM compiler does not support 64-bit unsigned integers. I'm using the ARMCC compiler (from the RealView MDK-ARM toolchain), and the following code

char s[100];
unsigned int x32;
unsigned long int x64;

sprintf(s,"sizeof(x32)=%u\r\n",sizeof(x32));
printf(s);
sprintf(s,"sizeof(x64)=%u\r\n",sizeof(x64));
printf(s);

produces the following output

sizeof(x32)=4
sizeof(x64)=4

This leads me to believe that the ARMCC tools don't support 64-bit math either.

However, if that's so, why doesn't the above code create any errors or warnings when it's compiled?

Is there a way to get 64-bit unsigned integer support in these tools?

Parents
  • 0 in reply to Andy Neil

    Maybe I should start another thread...

    <soap box mount>
    For tools that cost several 1000's of dollars, you'd think KEIL could afford to include hard copy of the doc's. I'm sure it's a pain to maintain them, and I'm sure no one likes to publish errata for their doc's, but I wonder... how many folks there are besides me who like to sit in a comfortable chair and read them (as opposed to sitting at their desk even longer trying to do that)? The hard copy doc's are so much easier to read, mark up, dog-ear, etc., as well as thumb through looking for something.

    For me, the electronic copy of these manuals are a real disappointment. Time and time again I've been frustrated to find out that the info I was searching for really was in the doc after all; but I just couldn't find it because I didn't know the right keyword to search for, etc. That's where hard copy doc's really shine... you can often find answers that otherwise would remain elusive.

    When signing a check for $4500 for tools, another $50 for hard copy doc's would be an easy choice to make. Even if it was optional, and there was an adder fee for them, I'd buy them every time.
    </soap box dismount>

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Andy Neil

    Maybe I should start another thread...

    <soap box mount>
    For tools that cost several 1000's of dollars, you'd think KEIL could afford to include hard copy of the doc's. I'm sure it's a pain to maintain them, and I'm sure no one likes to publish errata for their doc's, but I wonder... how many folks there are besides me who like to sit in a comfortable chair and read them (as opposed to sitting at their desk even longer trying to do that)? The hard copy doc's are so much easier to read, mark up, dog-ear, etc., as well as thumb through looking for something.

    For me, the electronic copy of these manuals are a real disappointment. Time and time again I've been frustrated to find out that the info I was searching for really was in the doc after all; but I just couldn't find it because I didn't know the right keyword to search for, etc. That's where hard copy doc's really shine... you can often find answers that otherwise would remain elusive.

    When signing a check for $4500 for tools, another $50 for hard copy doc's would be an easy choice to make. Even if it was optional, and there was an adder fee for them, I'd buy them every time.
    </soap box dismount>

Children