On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > > 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.
Ugh, I meant "size-in-chars" :) -Chris >> >> -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
