On 01/07/2016 10:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
I don't think it's desirable to raise the warning for this case under different conditions from the warning for other signedness cases. The targets do differ in signedness - it's just that the difference is between "plain" and "signed" or "plain" and "unsigned", not between signed and unsigned. Maybe the warning message should be more specific in this case, but not a less-specific "incompatible" which is what this patch would achieve.
I was going to voice the same opinion yesterday but forgot to hit Send. If you consider signedness of char a tri-state, then there's nothing wrong with the warning message.
Bernd