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
- From: schopper-gcc at bfw-online dot de
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:53:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFD: C pointer conversions that differ in unsignedness
- References: <409E9DFD-F84E-11D7-9C01-003065A77310@apple.com> <20051205152756.A20653@lar.bfw.de> <20051205174321.GA1456@synopsys.com>
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?
>
> "long" and "signed long" are the same type. You are confused about how
> C and C++ are defined. Same with "int" and "signed int". Only for "char"
> are things different; it is implementation-defined (can differ from
> platform to platform) whether "char" is signed or not.
>