RetroSearch Browse

Fri Dec 19 07:10:11 EST 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/041236.html

Hye-Shik Chang <perky at i18n.org> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>> Hye-Shik Chang wrote:
>> 
>> > AFAIK, *(unsigned char*)s is always smaller than 256.
>> 
>> except when it isn't.  see the ANSI C spec for details.
>> 
>
> Ah. I found. I'm very surprised for that. Thank you! :-)
> BTW, do we really support architectures with 9bits-sized char?

On some kinds of Cray that Python has been built on in the past, I
think the smallest addressable unit of memory is 64 bits.  So, not
quite 96, but getting on that way.  I don't think we want to make the
lives of people porting to such architectures any harder than it
already is...

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  Need to Know is usually an interesting UK digest of things that
  happened last week or might happen next week. [...] This week,
  nothing happened, and we don't care.
                           -- NTK Now, 2000-12-29, http://www.ntk.net/

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/041236.html below:

[Python-checkins] Re: [Python-Dev] Re: python/dist/src/Objectsunicodeobject.c, 2.204, 2.205