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/[EMAIL PROTECTED])
but I don't see any response indicating why the change was never made.
Mike
.
