This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: RE: char should be signed by default
- From: "Meissner, Michael" <michael dot meissner at amd dot com>
- To: devils_advocate at austin dot rr dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:40:45 -0500
- Subject: RE: RE: char should be signed by default
> -----Original Message-----
> From: devils_advocate@austin.rr.com
[mailto:devils_advocate@austin.rr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:54 PM
> To: Meissner, Michael
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: RE: char should be signed by default
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Meissner, Michael" <michael.meissner@amd.com>
> > Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:49 pm
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behalf
> > Of
> > > devils_advocate@austin.rr.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:19 AM
> > > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > > Subject: char should be signed by default
> > >
> > > The GNU C compiler supports both dialects; you can specify the
signed
> > > dialect with -fsigned-char and the unsigned dialect with
> > > -funsigned-char. However, this leaves open the question of which
> > > dialect to use by default.
> >
> > You use the ABI, which specifies whether chars and plain bitfields
> > signextend or not.
>
> GCC ignores the ABI w.r.t. bit-fields:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Non_002dbugs.html
>
> s/bit-fields/char/ ;-)
Yes, and in 1989, I fought that issue with RMS and lost then. It still
doesn't change my opinion that GCC should adhere to the local ABI.
--
Michael Meissner
AMD, MS 83-29
90 Central Street
Boxborough, MA 01719