Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:03:13 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MAX_UID ? Message-ID: <00Mar14.160314est.115202@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003141530500.2646-100000@alphplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 03:42:52PM %2B1100 References: <20000314035420.B17084@hades.hell.gr> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003141530500.2646-100000@alphplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2000-Mar-14 15:42:52 +1100, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote: >On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 05:28:47PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: >> ... >> > #define isschar(type) (!isfloat(type) && issigned(type) && sizeof(type) == 1) > >> This is marvellous in it's simplicity of interface. >> >> Yet, using sizeof(char) and assuming that it's going to be 1, strikes me >> like a dangerous thing to do. I have never heard of machines where this > >It is sure to be 1 (the C standard requires this). The problem is >going in the opposite direction -- sizeof(long) may also be 1. If this was comp.std.c, then I'd agree that such constructs may fail in some environments. It's not so clear that we need to worry about this here (this being FreeBSD). I believe that most or all such machines belong to Seymour Cray's legacy (CDC6600, Cray etc), and aren't likely to be running FreeBSD (or any other free Unix). I don't see any real impediment to such constructs being used within FreeBSD. A comment could be added warning of the problems if the code is used on `unusual' architectures. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00Mar14.160314est.115202>