[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wmappl

On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 19:26, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Bastien Nocera writes:
> > 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.
> K&R made char signed.
> K&R's compiler didn't have a "signed" keyword at all,
> so if char had not been signed then there would not
> have been any signed 8-bit type.
> K&R didn't need the 0xff character, so using char in
> place of int would generally make no difference.
> I stay out of Latin America, so my little Y doesn't
> get the runs; them foreigners can deal with it.)
> Even Microsoft got this right.
> AFAIK, we inherit the unsigned default from AIX.
> IBM made char unsigned to match what they'd done
> on S/370 and AS/400 hardware. On those platforms,
> IBM was using EBCDIC instead of ASCII, and needed
> to make char unsigned to prevent regular characters
> (basic numbers and letters) from being negative.
> Not many people were dumb enough to follow IBM.

The K&R book doesn't say if it's signed or not, that's up to the

> > 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?".
> Benefit: a processor that doesn't consume 75 watts
> Cost: must use AltiVec assembly instead of MMX assembly
> That was easy. Where's the benefit for unsigned char?

Fair enough.

> > Your time would be better spent fixing the programs
> > that make this wrong assumption.
> Yeah, with -fsigned-char in every Makefile... or fix the
> whole lot by changing the gcc default. It's just stupid
> to be swimming against the flow on this.

Patches willkommen. Knock yourself out.

/Bastien Nocera

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: