On 4/13/07, Dave Dodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 12:29:53PM +0100, Will Newton wrote: > > Is there a reason why signed char has been made the default rather > > than unsigned char? Because i386 is signed? > > I assume it's just following the System V ABI for i386, which states > that plain char corresponds to a signed byte. This choice probably > dates back to Xenix in the mid 1980s.
The uClibc build process unconditionally passes gcc -fsigned-char on all architectures. I don't think it's the correct choice and will lead to suboptimal code generation on some platforms. I fail to see what relevance the System V ABI for i386 has to this discussion. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
