gnupic: Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch


Previous by date: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell
Next by date: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell
Previous in thread: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell
Next in thread: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell

Subject: Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch
From: Chris Emerson ####@####.####
Date: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100
Message-Id: <20050914153836.GA15942@ixion.tartarus.org>

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:29:59AM -0400, Daniel Serpell wrote:
> Gcc uses signed chars as default, so null-terminated strings are signed
> char pointers. The C standard don't specify any default, but I think
> that signed chars are more common.

Gcc on some (most) platforms uses signed chars by default, but it uses
unsigned on PPC for example.

IMO plain "char" should be used for character strings (especially as
that's what the standard library functions take), and signed/unsigned
chars only when you really care about the signedness (ie when you're
dealing with numbers rather than characters).

Chris

Previous by date: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell
Next by date: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell
Previous in thread: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell
Next in thread: 14 Sep 2005 16:38:38 +0100 Re: [gnupic] XWisp2 with gcc patch, Daniel Serpell


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.