From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat May 31 23:46:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA09548 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 31 May 1997 23:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA09542 for ; Sat, 31 May 1997 23:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from msmith@localhost) by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) id QAA12329; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:15:55 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199706010645.QAA12329@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp In-Reply-To: from Steve Howe at "May 31, 97 09:43:53 pm" To: un_x@anchorage.net (Steve Howe) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:15:55 +0930 (CST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Steve Howe stands accused of saying: > > how can this be? i changed my argument to > "signed char *" and gcc doesn't like it. so i change it to > "unsigned char *" and gcc doesn't like it either! gcc wants to > have it's cake and eat it too! it doesn't mind "char *" though. > > so what's wrong with adding "signed" or "unsigned"? Because neither is equivalent to the "default" signedness. const char * is _not_ equivalent to const unsigned char *, or const signed char *. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[