Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU
From: shap@shasta.Stanford.EDU (shap)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: 64 bit architectures and C/C++
Message-ID: <184@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 6 May 91 18:10:36 GMT
References: <168@shasta.Stanford.EDU> <12563@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <312@nazgul.UUCP>
Organization: Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory
Lines: 23

In article <312@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>
>The most aggravating problem we have is it seems we (Zortech) are the only
>compiler for which:
>	char
>	signed char
>	unsigned char
>are all distinct types! For example,

One of us is misreading the standard.  If it's me maybe someone can set
me straight.

My reading of the ANSI standard was that 'char' was identically equally
to exactly one of 'unsigned char' or 'signed char', but that the choice
was up to the compiler.

Flagging suspect cases with a warning flag would be a useful feature,
but doing it unconditionally is a pain in the butt.

Have I misunderstood something in the standard?


Jonathan