Bernd Schmidt wrote: > 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.
I whole heartedly agree. Using hacky compiler switch foo to paper over incorrect code in the library seems short sighted and risky. David Daney _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
