On 6 June 2012 12:03, Andrew Turner wrote: > I've been working on getting the ARM EABI working with FreeBSD. > > As part of the EABI spec the Procedure Call Standard for the ARM > Architecture (AAPCS) defines wchar_t as either an unsigned int or an > unsigned short with the former as the preferred type. FreeBSD defines > wchar_t as a __wchar_t, which is defined as a __ct_rune_t, which is > defined as an int. > > wint_t and rune_t are also defined in terms of __ct_rune_t. wint_t must > be a signed type as it needs to hols a WEOF which is defined as -1. > > The type of rune_t appears to need to be the same as wint_t as the tow* > and isw* functions are defined as taking a wint_t by the documentation > but __ct_rune_t in the code and compare this value against __rune_t > values. > > My question is am I correct in thinking rune_t and wint_t should be > defined as __ct_rune_t with __ct_rune_t defined as an int while wchar_t > should be defined as an unsigned int in ARM EABI and defined as an int > elsewhere? Non-authoritative answer: I think you conclusion is correct. I think that freebsd-standa...@freebsd.org would be a better audience for this kind of question.
-- VZ _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
