Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 21:40:41 -0800 (AKDT) From: Steve Howe <un_x@anchorage.net> To: freebsd-hackers <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970602212800.5129F-100000@aak.anchorage.net> In-Reply-To: <199706021529.BAA00871@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, David Nugent wrote: > > It isn't only a portability issue, but also a c++ standards issue. > c++ distinguishes between these three types. Ansi c only has two > and there it *is* a portability issue as to whether char* is signed > or unsigned. This is one of the many ambiguities that c++ has the > luxury to resolve. :) i hate to carry on anything trivial ... but, having a "default signedness" seems like trouble to me. when you are writing code, you should have some intentions for a signedness. imho, c++ should've just kept 2 types of signedness and made sure one or the other was always specified - then you wouldn't have the kludge of "whatever some other compiler deems it to be". i can't imagine a worthwhile use of that. if i am using an "unsigned char *", i expect my code to use an "unsigned char *". it does not benefit any cross-compiler or any other architecture to say "no - i will use it as a signed char *". but i have been wrong before :) -------------------------------------------------------------------- E0BD7BD2 625FC4D0 2ED52811 B1A18A42 http://www.anchorage.net/~un_x --------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95q.970602212800.5129F-100000>