RFD: C pointer conversions that differ in unsignedness

[schopper-gcc@bfw-online.de]

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.
>