Re: Proposal: _ctype_ table bitwidth change

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:25:58AM +0900, Takehiko NOZAKI wrote:
> your idea is:
> 
>     extern unsigned char *_ctype_;
>     extern unsigned char *_ctype_extra_bit_;
> 
>     #define isalpha(c) (_ctype_[c] & _ALPHA)
>     ...
>     #define isblank(c) (_ctype_extra_bit_[c] & _BLANK)
> 
> isn't it?

This makes things like the libstdc++ interaction a lot more messy.
It should be avoided for that.

> at this point, i and joerg have same opinion(i  think), we would like
> to replace more sane (such as _RUNETYPE_*) bitmask pattern.

Yes, the primary point of contention seems to be using a 16bit table and
shifted or using the _RUNETYPE_* bitmasks directly with a 32bit table.

Joerg