On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> 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.
>
> I fail to see what relevance the System V ABI for i386 has to this
> discussion.
Yeah sorry, I completely misread the question as "why is the i386 char
signed".
-Dave Dodge
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
