tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: 16bit ctype table

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:07:55PM +0900, Takehiko NOZAKI wrote:
> > I think we are talking about different things. I am refering to the
> > original _ctype_ table used by any code compiled against the old
> > ctype.h. In the patch I posted, only additional translation is fixing up
> > _CTYPE_X and _CTYPE_B. The former can like be dropped without problems
> > as any user I am aware of used _CTYPE_X | _CTYPE_N together anyway.
> if you afraid old header + new libc problems, we simply change prefix
> _CTYPE -> __CTYPE and so on again.
> there is no reason for losing runtime performance for such a thing.

My point is that we need to keep both tables until the major bump.
Minimising the differences between them keeps the runtime impact as
small as possible. I am all for reducing the difference further, but
until the major bump, the old table won't go away.

> and one more thing, are you tested cross compile on FreeBSD?
> mklocale(1) is cross tool, so _CTYPE_* may conflict with FreeBSD's one
> in _ctype.h.

We don't use _CTYPE_* in mklocale? Only the rune version.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index