Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:21:16 -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.970602221732.5317A-100000@aak.anchorage.net> In-Reply-To: <199706030619.PAA01871@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > No, there you are quite right. But if I use a "char *" type, I know > not to explicitly expect it to be either "signed" or "unsigned". i'm in the middle of porting a bunch of code, and would like to do it as "properly" as possible. can anyone tell me an instance where declaring "char *" is of any benefit, as opposed to explicitly defining "unsinged char *" or "signed char *" ? -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.970602221732.5317A-100000>