On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:40:42PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03.08.2011 13:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >I don't believe that the standard allows for an implementation of
> >enums as unsigned integers - after all, individual enum literals can
> >be given corresponding negative integer values.
>
> C99 says:
>
> >Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type,
> >or an
> >unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined,110) but
> >shall be
> >capable of representing the values of all the members of the enumeration.
Are we moving to C99?
C89 says:
Each enumerated type shall be compatible with an integer type; the
choice of type is implementation-defined.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <[email protected]> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [email protected]
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
