Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

A turning point for GNU libc

Posted Mar 30, 2012 22:24 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)
In reply to: A turning point for GNU libc by HelloWorld
Parent article: A turning point for GNU libc

>Glib provides a hell of a lot more than just a sane (well, sane by C standards) string implementation.

I agree - it has utterly pointless typedefs like gchar (char is standardized by C, you know). Hiding an indirection (behind gpointer) is not nice either.

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Apr 5, 2012 15:32 UTC (Thu) by welinder (guest, #4699) [Link]

> char is standardized by C, you know

Really?

What, exactly, is standardized about char in C?

* it's a numeric type.
* it is distinct from signed char and unsigned char, but has the same
range of values as one of the two
* it's a magic type for aliasing
* it's the element type of "foo"
* sizeof(char)==1

char c = 0; /* valid */
char c = -1; /* valid, but might not read as -1 */
char c = 128; /* implementation dependent: either valid or undefined */

A turning point for GNU libc

Posted Apr 5, 2012 16:33 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

True, but gchar is defined as a typedef for char, so it adds no additional guarantees. Why not just use char? At least "guchar" is shorter than "unsigned char"; I see no benefit at all in using gchar.

If you want guaranteed ranges, uint8_t and int8_t are standardized in C99 as integer types with exactly eight bits and (in the signed case) two's-complement representation. Both definitions are required unless the implementation has no compatible integer type.