--- Comment #10 from kst at mib dot org 2008-03-30 21:49 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> >I'd expect the warning to be muted in one of the calls, depending on
> -f{un}signed-char.
>
> No, char is a seperate type from signed char and unsigned char so they are
> al
t gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kst at mib dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-cygwin
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-cygwin
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-cygwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23665
--- Additional Comments From kst at mib dot org 2005-07-27 19:34 ---
I misused the term "compatible" above (and I think the standard itself
is sometimes a bit loose about the term).
All references are to the C99 standard. I think the C90 rules are the
same or very similar.
--- Additional Comments From kst at mib dot org 2005-07-27 01:54 ---
Oh, I agree completely that making string literals const
(as they are in C++) would make more sense. The reason they
aren't defined that way in C is that by the time "const" was
added to the language
--- Additional Comments From kst at mib dot org 2005-07-26 21:07 ---
String literals in C are char*, not const char*, though writing to a
string literal invokes undefined behavior. But that's not the point.
Assuming plain char is signed, the warning
"pointer
;... differ in signedness"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: kst at mib dot org
CC: gcc-bu
--- Additional Comments From kst at mib dot org 2005-03-24 22:50 ---
> the correct way is:
> -std=iso9899:1990
Sure, but as long as "-std=c89" is supported, why not support "-std=c90"
as well? It's more correct than "c89", and it's easier
=c99 -pedantic tmp.c
%
--
Summary: Support -std=c90 as alias for -std=c89
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu
