Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:20:14 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: robert.moore@intel.com Cc: acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: apm problem Message-ID: <20040616.152014.32124821.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE055011BA135@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE055011BA135@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE055011BA135@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com>
"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> writes:
: This entire discussion reminds me why I've always felt that signed
: integers and system software don't mix.
:
: :-)
I'd usually agree with that, but there are times that a signed number
is better than an unsigned one. You can make the same kinds of errors
with a negative number passed as unsigned as you can with an unsigned
number passed as signed....
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040616.152014.32124821.imp>