develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2003

RE: How about gcc -funsigned-char [Was: Re: one signedness nit fo r Encode]

Thread Previous
From:
Horsley Tom
Date:
February 17, 2003 06:04
Subject:
RE: How about gcc -funsigned-char [Was: Re: one signedness nit fo r Encode]
Message ID:
F5573A841216B94CB3CD1A7A0A1FD35612E5CE@exchange.ccur.com
> > I agree with you that people such be $#@!  explicit about the
> > signedness of their chars, based on my limited experience :-)
> 
> Make that declare as 'char' or 'unsigned char' and (cast) as
> appropriate.  Spelling 'signed char' out in full looks messy.

Yea, I think that's at the root of my visceral reaction to
char signedness. Back when there was no ANSI standard, there
was also no "signed" keyword, making it absolutely impossible
on those platforms that chose to make "char" unsigned by default
to get a signed small integer type.

(Actually, the other hole in signedness that also "bit" me many
times when trying to port code was bit fields - some compilers
implement 3 possible signed states for bit fields - signed,
unsigned, and "extracted as unsigned, but treated as signed
thereafter" - bleh!)

Thread Previous


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About