On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Tim Peters wrote: > [moved from patches to python-dev] > > [Bill Tutt] > > Code currently in unicodeobject.c needs to do 32-bit arithmetic in > > order to work. Additionally, UCS-4 characters (aka UTF-16 surrogate > > characters) require 32 bits to represent the true unicode code point of a > > surrogate pair. > > But is the requirement really for *exactly* 32 bits, or for *at least* 32 > bits? The problem isn't with feebler machines, it's with higher-end ones: > on some Python platforms, even sizeof(short) == 8. As is, your patch will > prevent Python from compiling on those. Its definately for at least 32 bits. Having a 32 bit specific type lets me not worry about all the issues relating to: What happens if sizeof(int) | sizeof(long) > 32 bits and I failed to compensate for that somehow. Now, the code that I changed to use the typedef might not care about this, but other code using the typedef might. Just color me a paranoid SOB. :) I'd rather always have a 32 bit type for something I know will always require just 32 bits. Bill
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4