On Jan 11, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > On Jan 11, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Ken Dyck wrote: >>> I'm also concerned about the dimensionality here. Why did we >>> choose 'Chars' instead of 'Bytes'? >> >> The short answer is that it reflects how getTypeSizeInChars() >> calculates >> its value. It divides the bit size of the type by the bit size of the >> char type, so calling them CharUnits seemed more accurate than >> ByteUnits. The aim is to eventually support character widths other >> than >> 8. >> >> What specifically are you concerned about? > > Hi Ken, > > I'm concerned that the uses of getTypeSize() / 8 always want the > size in bytes, not chars (if the size of chars differs from the size > of bytes). Code that expects getTypeSizeInChars() to return the > size in bytes (which is all the cases in libAnalysis) will get the > wrong results.
I'm pretty sure that Ken's approach is right. On target where a char is not one byte, sizeof(char) always returns 1, and size(foo) always returns size-in-bytes for example. -Chris _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
