Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 10:03:20 +0300 From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> To: Steve Howe <un_x@anchorage.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp Message-ID: <19970601100320.37936@techunix.technion.ac.il> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970531213558.2061A-100000@aak.anchorage.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You, Steve Howe, wrote on Sat, May 31, 1997 at 09:43:53PM -0800:
>
> how can this be? i changed my argument to
> "signed char *" and gcc doesn't like it. so i change it to
> "unsigned char *" and gcc doesn't like it either! gcc wants to
> have it's cake and eat it too! it doesn't mind "char *" though.
>
> so what's wrong with adding "signed" or "unsigned"?
>From gcc's Info:
Each kind of machine has a default for what `char' should be. It
is either like `unsigned char' by default or like `signed char' by
default.
And later:
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.
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.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970601100320.37936>