On Jan 11, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > 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
Sounds good. That's all I was concerned about! _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
