From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 2 23:31:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA09994 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:31:56 -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 XAA09973 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 23:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aak.anchorage.net (ai-132 [207.14.72.132]) by iceberg.anchorage.net. (8.6.11/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA10269 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 21:29:00 -0800 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 22:21:16 -0800 (AKDT) From: Steve Howe X-Sender: abc@aak.anchorage.net To: freebsd-hackers Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp In-Reply-To: <199706030619.PAA01871@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------