Proof positive the "signedness of char *" warning is useless.
floydpink at gmail.com
Thu Dec 1 16:14:33 UTC 2005
This is the best solution I have heard thus far. This is the path we have
always taken on our embedded platforms as well.
On 12/1/05, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 November 2005 17:41, Chuck Meade wrote:
> > Yeah that one can't be warned against by the compiler. It is just an
> > error -- assuming the user wasn't purposely aiming for this behavior.
> > In other words, if they wrote the above code using a signed char,
> > and did not handle (or prevent) the case where the MSB would get set,
> > and they are surprised when the comparison gives unexpected results,
> > then the error is on their part.
> Ok, so some of the most common _real_ errors aren't caught by this stupid
> warning (and can't be), so even herculean efforts to clean up the noise
> wouldn't actually be _useful_.
> But what _might_ be useful is -funsigned-char added to our makefile. (The
> argument about this producing more or less efficient code still sounds
> handwaving at this point. I'm more concerned about whether or not our
> is _right_. We declare unsigned char in a lot of places already, if that
> affected the binary size I think we would have noticed by now. As for
> efficiency, either the library has assembly optimized versions of strcmp()
> and friends, or it doesn't.)
> *rummage* *rummage*...
> I just set EXTRA_CFLAGS_OPTIONS to -funsigned-char and did a "make clean
> make" and it seems to have built (on ubuntu with gcc 3.3) just fine. I'll
> try it on gcc 4.0 in a bit and see if it makes a difference to the darn
> warnings, and if so I'll patch Rules.mak and check it in to see what
> for other people.
> I'm going to try to put together a -pre2 for release wednesday the
> 7th. It
> probably won't have all the bugs from the list fixed, but I hope to at
> have 'em triaged into "must fix for 1.1", "would be nice", and "not a 1.1
> > Chuck
> Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
> I do not think it means what you think it means.
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the busybox