Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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; ... foo(u); foo(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(). -- Sergei. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
