On 4/11/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because when it varies it's a source of bugs, and we got tired of hitting > them. (And yes, we hit them.)
Are there any bugs in the bug database I could refer to? > You can specify "signed char" or "unsigned char" when you declare them, and > lots of places do. But gcc 4.x produces warnings whenever things "differ in > signedness", and filling the code with typecasts to make this shut up would > make the code brittle and unreadable and eventually introduce new bugs > (because that thing you're typecasting to (signed char) got turned into an > unsigned int elsewhere and all the references that produced an error or > warning were fixed up, but the typecast prevents this one from > complaining...) I count 10 warnings in 3 source files (all printf/scanf related). > BusyBox chose -funsigned-char because we liked being 8-bit clean. (Makes > things like UTF-8 a whole lot easier). But tinycc won't work if you build it > with -funsigned-char, which also means it won't work if you build it on an > architecture that defaults to -funsigned-char (arm, for example). I haven't > tracked down the problem there yet... Is it valid to link a C library built with -fsigned-char with an app built with -funsigned-char? > Which architecture are you referring to? http://www.imgtec.com/metagence/products/ _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
