From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 2 01:06:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA06297 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iceberg.anchorage.net. (root@iceberg.anchorage.net [207.14.72.150]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA06279 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aak.anchorage.net (ai-131 [207.14.72.131]) by iceberg.anchorage.net. (8.6.11/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA06433; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:03:07 -0800 Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 23:55:29 -0800 (AKDT) From: Steve Howe X-Sender: abc@aak.anchorage.net To: Anatoly Vorobey cc: freebsd-hackers Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp In-Reply-To: <19970601100320.37936@techunix.technion.ac.il> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > The type `char' is always a distinct type from each of `signed > char' or `unsigned char', even though its behavior is always just > like one of those two. ok, but why? i'm trying to understand any possible reason for this, and can't think of any ... (my teachers used to hate me :) i've written assemblers and mini-compilers and have some understanding of what's necessary, but i don't get this! what's is the point of this rule? as it says, "its behaviour is always just like on of those two" ... > gcc is probably acting up because you specified a fascistic > warning level ;) In fact I just tried to reproduce it and -Wall > -pedantic did the trick, while -Wall by itself or even with > -ansi wasn't enough. no, just c++, i used no options. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sleep: a sign a caffeine deprivation ... http://www.anchorage.net/~un_x -------------------------------------------------------------------------