[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again
|
From: |
Lyndon Nerenberg |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again |
|
Date: |
Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:07:57 -0800 |
On 2013-02-05, at 8:58 AM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> Well, okay, let me rephrase that ... it doesn't on my system. On
> NetBSD it does because the ctype macros are (in many cases) indexes
> into an array. But as I understand it altering char to be unsigned
> would actually solve that particular warning as well.
It would solve the warning, but not the bug in the code, which is the missing
explicit cast to int required to match the is* function prototype.
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, David Levine, 2013/02/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again,
Lyndon Nerenberg <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Tom Lane, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/05