apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: apr_uint8_t and apr_int8_t?
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:15:16 GMT
I can definitely see your point.  Although it's not the highest priority,
we would certainly consider a patch to effect this behavior.

Yours,

Bill

Mike Duigou wrote:
> I'm motivated to ask to this for wire protocols which are defined with 
> specific bit sizes. char and unsigned char are not defined to be 
> *exactly* 8 bits and are apparently not 8 bits in some esoteric 
> environments.
> 
> The C standard 5.2.4.2.1 requires that char and unsigned char be *at 
> least* 8 bits but does not fix a value. So assuming that UCHAR_MAX is 
> 255 is just as unwise as assuming that UINT_MAX is 65535 or 4294967295.
> 
> This request is also partially for completeness with the other bit sized 
> scalar typedefs.
> 
> Mike
> 
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Can you give us any example where signed char, unsigned char don't
>> fit the bill?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Mike Duigou wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to add definitions for apr_uint8_t and 
>>> apr_int8_t to apr.h? This appears to have been previously requested 
>>> in 2001 
>>> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/200105.mbox/%3CJLEGKKNELMHCJPNMOKHOGELPDOAA.striker@samba-tng.org%3E)

>>> but I don't see any response indicating why the change was never made.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message