Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 16:15:55 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: un_x@anchorage.net (Steve Howe) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: signed/unsigned cpp Message-ID: <199706010645.QAA12329@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970531213558.2061A-100000@aak.anchorage.net> from Steve Howe at "May 31, 97 09:43:53 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706010645.QAA12329>