On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 07:48, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > Bastien Nocera writes: > > On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 23:09, Mij wrote: > > >> "Signed" is an implicit keyword, and it doesn't implies > >> any specific behaviour. It's simply implied. Then, I > >> think the problem comes from a gcc optimization. > ... > > Char on PPC is unsigned. > > It doesn't have to be. What benefits do we get from > being incompatible with the rest of the world? > Not that a signed char (negative letters???) makes > any sense, but that's the norm. > > I don't think it would be terribly hard to fix this. > At the syscall level, and even at the libc level, > there wouldn't be much of an ABI difference at all. > If anything, buggy behavior would disappear. No need to send your humours to me. K&R never said that char should be signed, it's not the norm. People just assume it, "Hey, it works on my machine, so it should work everywhere". Next you're gonna tell me that MMX assembly should also work on PPC because "What benefits do we get from being incompatible with the rest of the world?". Your time would be better spent fixing the programs that make this wrong assumption. Cheers -- /Bastien Nocera http://hadess.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part