[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:12:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org> writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
>> I'm not sure I understand why idx_t is better than size_t
>> here, can you elaborate? Why not ssize_t?
>
> You find a detailed explanation in the comments of idx.h.
Thanks for the pointer -- it doesn't say anything about why ssize_t
can't be used though? As a signed variant of size_t, it seems relevant
to consider.
>> Maybe a compromise is to
>> keep the old API but add new APIs with idx_t types and the
>> implementation of the old functions uses the new one.
>
> The objective is to eliminate bugs due to the use of unsigned types
> for numerical values.
Is that a realistic goal with C using the unsigned type size_t for
low-level functions like strlen()? It seems like an un-idiomatic goal.
> We can achieve it only by increasing the use of signed types such as
> 'idx_t'. If we keep the old function, it needs to be marked with
> __attribute__ ((__deprecated__)), otherwise existing code will
> continue to use the old function forever.
My idea was that both APIs would be supported indefinitely.
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Bruno Haible, 2021/08/28
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Bruno Haible, 2021/08/28
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Bruno Haible, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Bruno Haible, 2021/08/29
- Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Paul Eggert, 2021/08/29
Re: [PATCH] base32, base64: prefer signed to unsigned integers, Simon Josefsson, 2021/08/29