[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED? |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:39:29 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
* Hallvard B Furuseth wrote on Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 07:25:27PM CEST:
>
> Well, it is a _potential_ bug in code which uses of the C macro defined
> by AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED, though hopefully an unlikely one. The reason I
> reacted to this in the first place was not that it can be "optimized"
> away, but that the macro invades the C implementation's namespace. Some
> implementation could e.g. define __CHAR_UNSIGNED__ as a boolean - 0 for
> signed, 1 for unsigned.
Good point. If we have reason to believe that there exists such an
implementation, we should obsolete this macro. As long as we don't,
I still feel a bit on the conservative side.
Thanks for pointing that out,
Ralf
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, (continued)
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Russ Allbery, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/06/25
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Hallvard B Furuseth, 2008/06/25
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?,
Ralf Wildenhues <=