Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:37:51 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: un_x@anchorage.net (Steve Howe) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp Message-ID: <199706020807.RAA20786@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970601234203.1753D-100000@aak.anchorage.net> from Steve Howe at "Jun 1, 97 11:47:50 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Howe stands accused of saying: > On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > > > Because neither is equivalent to the "default" signedness. > > > > const char * is _not_ equivalent to const unsigned char *, or const > > signed char *. > > i would appreciate it if you could explain further - why? > any char * can _only_ be signed or unsigned, even if it's > the default that makes it so. ? 'char' has three types of signedness; "signed", "unsigned" and "default". Signed and unsigned are obvious. Default means "use whatever is the default on this platform". Thus, for portable code signed != unsigned != default. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706020807.RAA20786>