Etienne Gagnon writes: > I should have compiled with -pedantic, of course... I've included a few fixes > in the attachment. > > >> malloc() returns a char*, not a jbyte*. > > [#1] byte > addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any > member of the basic character set of the execution > environment > > [#2] NOTE 1 It is possible to express the address of each > individual byte of an object uniquely. > > [#3] NOTE 2 A byte is composed of a contiguous sequence of > bits, the number of which is implementation-defined. The > least significant bit is called the low-order bit; the most > significant bit is called the high-order bit. > > 3.5 > [#1] character > bit representation that fits in a byte * > > > Do we actually have to deal with platforms that have non 8-bit chars?
Maybe, but that's not the only thing. It's possible to define jbyte so that it is an 8 bit signed value but not a character type, and JNI does not forbid this. I suspect that all the platforms we use define jbyte to be a character type, but I can see no overpowering reason to introduce a dependency on that. > I guess quite a few other things/algorithms in the class library would > break if it is so... Perhaps it's time to fix them, then. > It's fine to be pedantic, but up to a point... That depends on what you mean by pedantry. Both issues are in a sense pedantic: the 128-bit pointer type and the non-character jbyte type. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
