Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you proposing that we change all the "char *" to "unsigned char *"?
> No, I suggest we change all "char *" to "unsigned char *" only where
> it points a string which could hold non ASCII character strings.
Which is pretty nearly all of them...
> To
> > For me, your patche seems to be a retrogression. In my understanding,
> > the reason why PostgreSQL uses "char *" in many places is just it was
> > designed in the old days when ASCII was the only charset in the world.
>
> Are you proposing that we change all the "char *" to "unsigned char *"?
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1. Can anyone think of a cleaner way to do this?
> For me, your patche seems to be a retrogression. In my understanding,
> the reason why PostgreSQL uses "char *" in many places is just it was
> designed in the old days when ASCII was the only charset in
> With gcc 4 spreading, it seems like it's past time to do something about
> all those signed-vs-unsigned-char warnings that it emits. (Translation:
> now that I have to use gcc 4 regularly, I got annoyed enough to fix it
> ;-))
>
> I looked into it a little and determined that nearly all the war
