Proof positive the "signedness of char *" warning is useless.
rob at landley.net
Fri Dec 2 17:40:59 UTC 2005
On Friday 02 December 2005 10:45, John Z. Bohach wrote:
> On Friday 02 December 2005 07:47, Rob Landley wrote:
> > It does match the prototype. The prototype is "char". The signedness of
> > that was indeterminate.
> Does not match. Watch:
> void foo(char x);
> signed char y;
See "the signedness is indeterminate". Signed or unsigned will clash on
various platforms as the default moves.
> Besides, you've got more than just char signed warnings in the text file of
> errors you posted, and that's when I got involved in the discussion. As
> I've stated previously, your solution is fine.
The int ones I don't mind so much. The char ones are noise.
> The only point I'm trying
> to make is that the signedness of char's must always be explicitly
> specified in new code that people write in order to avoid this issue in the
> future. Its not the compiler's fault.
> > Now it's specifying -funsigned-char. It is now determinate.
> > You are now in my spam filter.
> Why don't you post your compiler grumblings on the gcc mailing list, maybe
> they'll put you in their spam filter...
Because I read large chunks of the gcc source code years ago and I'm NEVER
poking at the internals of that thing again if I can help it?
I'm already trying to follow linux-kernel, user mode linux (-devel and -user),
busybox, and uClibc. These are projects I'm willing to poke at the internals
of. If I was going to pick up a compiler and start doing the same, it would
be Fabrice Bellard's TCC, not gcc. But right now, I've got way too much on
my plate already.
I view gcc as a necessary evil, for now.
Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
More information about the busybox