Re: at least 260 packages broken on arm, powerpc and s390 due to wrong assumption on char signedness
On Sun, 2001-12-30 at 17:02, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> This package is correct as is, and the warning is harmless; the line
> of code involved is:
> return (c<0||c>255)? unexpected_char: icode[c];
> where c is a char expected to be in the normal range (0<=c<=127). All
> the chars used in this code (AFAICT) are in this range.
This still says to me there is likely a logic error in the code; if the
authors thought it was possible for c to take on a negative value at
some point, then it should be declared signed. Otherwise, why not just
declare it unsigned and remove the test for c < 0?