Jes Sorensen <jes.soren...@redhat.com> writes: > On 01/25/11 11:14, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Jes Sorensen <jes.soren...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> On 01/24/11 18:28, Stefan Weil wrote: >>>> There was some discussion regarding this patch set. >>>> I agree with Markus that part of the first patch >>>> should be removed: don't change char to unsigned char. >>> >>> The unsigned char should definitely go in, leaving it as a signed char >>> doesn't serve any purpose. >> >> Leaving something as is doesn't need justification. Changing it does. >> The justification presented so far was "it is prettier to match the real >> behavior of pure toupper()". Which I don't buy. But without commit >> access, I'm not a buyer. > > Well that is just too bad. qemu_toupper() is a hack around the fact that > people often forget to use the right type, it is not an excuse for using > the wrong type in the code.
qemu_toupper() is designed to work correctly for any character argument, be it signed or unsigned. The fact that toupper() works only for unsigned character values is irrelevant for qemu_toupper(). The fact that qemu_toupper()'s implementation uses toupper() is an implementation detail.
