This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Changing WCHAR_TYPE from "long int" to "int"?
- To: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
- Subject: Re: Changing WCHAR_TYPE from "long int" to "int"?
- From: Ralf Baechle <ralf at oss dot sgi dot com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:20:50 +0200
- Cc: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, linux-mips at oss dot sgi dot com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <20010805094806.A3146@lucon.org> <20010806115913.B17179@bacchus.dhis.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:10:59PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >> I am working with Eric to clean up the Linux/mips configuration in
> >> gcc 3.x. I'd like to change WCHAR_TYPE from "long int" to "int". They
> >> are the same on Linux/mips. There won't be any run-time problems. I am
> >> wondering if there are any compatibility problems at the compile time
> >> at the source and binary level. For one thing, __WCHAR_TYPE__ will be
> >> changed from "long int" to "int". The only thing I can think of is
> >> the C++ libraries. But gcc 3.x doesn't work on Linux/mips. The one
> >> I am working on will be the first gcc 3.x for Linux/mips. So there
> >> shouldn't be any problems. Am I right?
> > The MIPS ABI defines wchar_t to long. So please go ahead and make the
> > change.
> I'm confused. The ABI defines it to be long - and he should change it
It's defined as a "long", not "long int" so we're obviously off by a tiny
H.J. - why did you want to change this type anyway? "long int" and "int"
both have the same size and signedness so there isn't any incompatibility