Re: Unsigned vs. signed ints

[Dan Sugalski]

At 10:16 AM 12/31/2001 -1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I started going through a lot of the warnings today and came across what looks
>like to be a far reaching issue.
>
>In well over half of the uses of INTVAL in structures and parameter passing,
>it seems to me that we really want unsigned ints instead. For example, all the
>unicode, size and length attributes should probably be unsigned.  I'm willing
>to create a patch for this but considering the amount of work, I wanted to get
>some feedback first.

If you want to implement a UINTVAL, go for it. You'll beat me to it, and 
that's fine. :)

As for the registers, I'd as soon they stay as they are--a single set of 
signed ints. Larger stuff can live in nums or PMCs, or code can force 'em 
to be unsigned as need be.

Dan

--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski  even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
  teddy bears get drunk

Unsigned vs. signed ints

[jacobsl001]

I started going through a lot of the warnings today and came across what looks
like to be a far reaching issue.

In well over half of the uses of INTVAL in structures and parameter passing,
it seems to me that we really want unsigned ints instead. For example, all the
unicode, size and length attributes should probably be unsigned.  I'm willing
to create a patch for this but considering the amount of work, I wanted to get
some feedback first.

This also brings up the issue of our int registers.  Currently they are treated
as signed.  Do we want a separate bank of unsigned integers.  Or like most processors
do, should we create two sets of ops, one that treats the register as signed
and the other which treats it as unsigned.

Thoughts
David