This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning

From: prj at po dot cwru dot edu (Paul Jarc)
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie at shareable dot org>
Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, Nick Ing-Simmons <nick at ing-simmons dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "'Morten Welinder'" <terra at gnome dot org>, Dave Korn <dk at artimi dot com>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:14:46 -0400
Subject: Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid?
References: <20040922161751.B4F6A1422D53@darter.rentec.com><NUTMEGODkUqESudbgsy00000021@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM><20040926192142.GA29842@mail.shareable.org><20040926192142.GA29842@mail.shareable.org><20041008130623.9516.4@llama.elixent.com><20041008091714.A1695@synopsys.com> <m3d5zttbu6.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu><20041008100853.A2207@synopsys.com> <m3mzyxgkil.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu><20041008205912.GA16038@mail.shareable.org>

Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
> Or is there a rule that is*(EOF) must return 0?

Yes.  The standard specifies the result of each is* macro to be 1 iff
the argument is a certain kind of character.  EOF is not any kind of
character.


paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

References:
- Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
  - From: Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
  - From: Paul Jarc
- Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
  - From: Paul Jarc
- Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning
  - From: Jamie Lokier

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]