On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 06:54:32PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > 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.
Well, it's been discussed at length in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23087 It seems sort of weird to me to say that 'char' and 'signed char' do differ in signedness when I know that my machine uses signed chars by default. But I'm wary of raising the warning -- it's likely to cause more uproar. At this point I don't know if I actually want to pursue this further, likely not. Yet I'd like to resolve this very old PR one way or another. Marek