Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c,net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Signed Chars - What Foolishness Revisited!
Message-ID: <7286@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Nov-86 16:27:14 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7286
Posted: Wed Nov  5 16:27:14 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Nov-86 16:27:14 EST
References: <8776@duke.duke.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 15

> It appears that an accident of history - the architecture of the PDP-11 -
> brought about the implementation of 'signed' chars...

This is correct.

> The only argument for signed char default appears to be that some old 
> PDP and VAX code will break without signed char defaults...

No, sorry, this is wrong.  There are many other machines on which char
is substantially more efficient when it is considered signed than when
it is considered unsigned.  Consigning the PDP11 and the VAX to history
(a dubious decision in itself) does not remove the problem.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry