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. > > 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.
It also strikes me as exceedingly odd, and dangerous. For example, any macros defined in uClibc header files could have different behaviour depending on whether they are used in uClibc or in an application. Bernd -- This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers. Analog Devices GmbH Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6 80807 Muenchen Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368 Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, Vincent Roche, Joseph E. McDonough _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
