Am 05.08.2014 20:08, schrieb Sylvain Joyeux:
>> Coming back to the signed char / unsigned char / char
>> thing above. Is it actually allowed by design (of typelib),
>> to have theses three types in the registry not aliased ?
>> (char being an alias of either signed or unsigned char)
> Yes, and it should stay that way. Typelib fundamental types are this
> way represented as the non-ambiguous (u)intX_t type names instead of
> the ambiguous normal C names. It requires a little bit more work on
> the importer side, but that is in my opinion worth it.
Uhm, your answer is ambiguous. So, is it possible, to haven
signed char / unsigned char / char as three separate Numerics
registered ?
I am not sure, if there is a real gain of using intX_t types. In the
end it is a test on if the type is a Numeric with or without signess
and a certain bit width, as do_compare ignores the type name
completely.
>
> Basically, there are two ways in the importer:
> - either directly translate numerical types into the non-ambiguous naming
> - or initialize the importer's registry with typelib's "standard
> C/C++ types". The importer would then avoid resolving them as they are
> already present in the registry.
Hm, in the clang importer I just register the builtins as
their corresponding numerics, as I get information about
signess, and bitwidth. I saw, that GCCXML did not give any information
about the sign though.
I like this solution, as I need no apriori information for building
a registry.
Greetings
Janosch
_______________________________________________
Rock-dev mailing list
Rock-dev@dfki.de
http://www.dfki.de/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/rock-dev
