apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: apr_uint8_t and apr_int8_t?
Date Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:16:12 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I can definitely see your point.  Although it's not the highest priority,
> we would certainly consider a patch to effect this behavior.

Out of curiosity, has APR been ported to any architecture where
the size of char is not 8 bits? If so, does the C implementation
on that architecture expose an extended integer type (i.e., one
that's not one of the standard types) that is 8 bits wide?

Martin

> 
> 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