Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "addrunit".
2019 May 06
3
RFC: On removing magic numbers assuming 8-bit bytes
...ith 8 bits these days.
> Octets are only ever 8 bits.
You might be able to convert all uses of byte to octet and abandon
byte entirely, but at that point why bother? It feels like a change
just for the sake of pedantry.
I like the "addressable unit" name, though it's a bit long (AddrUnit
seems OK). It at least signals to a reader that there might be
something weird going on. Getting someone writing new code to think in
those terms is a different matter, of course, but I don't think any of
the changes under discussion really help there.
BTW, is there an open source backend (in...
2019 May 08
2
RFC: On removing magic numbers assuming 8-bit bytes
...gt; > You might be able to convert all uses of byte to octet and abandon
> > byte entirely, but at that point why bother? It feels like a change
> > just for the sake of pedantry.
> >
> > I like the "addressable unit" name, though it's a bit long
> > (AddrUnit
> > seems OK). It at least signals to a reader that there might be
> > something weird going on. Getting someone writing new code to think
> > in
> > those terms is a different matter, of course, but I don't think any
> > of
> > the changes under discussion r...
2019 May 09
3
RFC: On removing magic numbers assuming 8-bit bytes
...andon
> > > > byte entirely, but at that point why bother? It feels like a
> > > > change
> > > > just for the sake of pedantry.
> > > >
> > > > I like the "addressable unit" name, though it's a bit long
> > > > (AddrUnit
> > > > seems OK). It at least signals to a reader that there might be
> > > > something weird going on. Getting someone writing new code to
> > > > think
> > > > in
> > > > those terms is a different matter, of course, but I don't thi...
2019 May 09
3
RFC: On removing magic numbers assuming 8-bit bytes
...r 8 bits.
>
>
> You might be able to convert all uses of byte to octet and
> abandon
> byte entirely, but at that point why bother? It feels like a
> change
> just for the sake of pedantry.
>
> I like the "addressable unit" name, though it's a bit long
> (AddrUnit
> seems OK). It at least signals to a reader that there might be
> something weird going on. Getting someone writing new code to
> think
> in
> those terms is a different matter, of course, but I don't think
> any
> of
> the changes under discussion really help there.
&g...
2019 May 06
2
RFC: On removing magic numbers assuming 8-bit bytes
I agree, addressable unit size is probably a better abstraction.
However, in the lib/CodeGen directory alone, there's some 785 uses of
the word "byte" and a significant fraction of the code that we want to
modify is using the byte terminology today. An example of unmodified
code from my showcase patch set:
assert(!(Shift & 0x7) == 0 &&
"Shifts not