This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFD: C pointer conversions that differ in unsignedness
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:53 AM, schopper-gcc@bfw-online.de wrote:
> > Oh right, what I really meant was 'char' instead of 'long'.
> > In fact I just took the type from the referenced article. Sorry for that.
> >
> > So am I right that the compiler should distinguish between char, signed char
> > and unsigned char in the proposed way?
>
> Good question. I don't believe so:
>
> [#5] Each of the comma-separated sets designates the same
> type, except that for bit-fields, it is implementation-
> defined whether the specifier int designates the same type
> as signed int or the same type as unsigned int.
>
> [ note, I have a feeling they meant char, not int, I suspect someone might be
> able to provide a pointer to a DR for this. ]
Bringing bit-fields into the matter is just confusing things since you
can't have pointers to bit-fields, but anyway char is not in a
comma-separated set with signed char or unsigned char and for DR#315 it
was proposed to say that whether char bit-fields have the same signedness
as non-bit-fields is unspecified.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)