On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:36:03 +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: > In article <20120322013932.ga24...@britannica.bec.de>, > Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: > >> > >> What's is wrong with it? > > > >It should be unnecessary. CHAR_MAX is certainly required to fit into > >both char and unsigned char. > > Yes, the issue here being that lint is saying that if char is signed > the constant 0xff does not fit; at the point lint looks at the assignment > CHAR_MAX is 255.
Isn't that literally schizophrenic? If char is signed, CHAR_MAX cannot be 255. If lint expands CHAR_MAX and operates on its value, then the check it tries to do is bogus. -uwe
