Re: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb
From: Sergei Organov
Date: Mon Feb 19 2007 - 06:59:55 EST
Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Given char's special nature, shouldn't the conclusion of this thread
> have long been simply that gcc needs -Wno-char-pointer-sign? (with
> whatever default, as far as I'm concerned).
I entirely agree that all the char business in C is messy enough to
justify separate warning switch(es) in GCC.
However, I still insist that the problem with the code:
void foo(char *c);
unsigned char *u;
signed char *s;
is not (only) in signedness, as neither 'u' nor 's' has compatible type
with the "char*", no matter what is the sign of "char", so if one cares
about type safety he needs warnings on both invocations of foo().
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/