On 01/05/13 14:17, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:03:42 +0100 Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> said: > >> On 01/05/13 14:07, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:52:50 +0100 Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> >>> said: >>> >>>> On 01/05/13 13:54, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:00:01 +0100 Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> >>>>> said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 01/05/13 10:58, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 10:08:48 +0100 Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> >>>>>>> said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 30/04/13 18:48, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:15:05 +0100 Tom Hacohen >>>>>>>>> <tom.haco...@samsung.com> said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where did you get that on? >>>>>>>>>> Anyhow, what do you think about changing it to unsigned wchar_t? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> on my pentium-m test machine... unicode val 0 was < 0 and thus walked >>>>>>>>> below the array. yes. literally a negative. wouldnt that be wuchar_t >>>>>>>>> or something? as wchar_t .. is a typedef... :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hm... Annoying. There's no wuchar_t though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> then we have... a problem... and it requires we check for < 0. :( >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think me might be better off casting to unsigned. Damn you people for >>>>>> not doing all the char type unsigned, wth?! >>>>> >>>>> chances are the compiler will produce the exact same code regardless... a >>>>> cast or what is there now. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nah, the whole point of the cast is to convert it to unsigned, I'm quite >>>> certain the compiler is capable of doing that. >>> >>> but your casting inside the func to just avoid if (x < 0)... which a >>> compiler will figure out to be the same as the cast to unsigned... >>> >>> >> >> The cast will work for unicode values that are greater than the signed >> limit (less than 0), while the if just fail for them. > > there are no unicode values of that magnitude... unicode by definition doesnt > even get close to using the most significant bit... :) it's by definition an > invalid code if < 0 (for 32bit signed)... > >
Oh, forgot to mention, I was thinking about boxes where wchar_t is signed and 16bit. :) There we'll have trouble. If you got negative values it must mean you've reached big enough unicode values, so the issue I'm describing is indeed real. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
