On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:30:50 -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:24am, u...@stderr.spb.ru ("Valeriy E. Ushakov") wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/lib/libc/stdio
>
> | On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 22:53:47 +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> |
> | > In article <20120327202907.gt26...@bigmac.stderr.spb.ru>,
> | > Valeriy E. Ushakov <u...@stderr.spb.ru> wrote:
> | > >
> | > >But that is not what the code was. The code was:
> | > >
> | > > char c; if (c == CHAR_MAX) ...
> | > >
> | > >and *that* is portable. As I said in another mail to thsi thread that
> | > >went unanswered, it is literally schizophrenic of lint to complain
> | > >about it.
> | >
> | > How can lint know that if (c == 255) is portable? Because CHAR_MAX
> | > gets expanded by cpp to 255 before lint parses the file.
> |
> | And this is *precisely* why it's fundamentally wrong. It's not 80s
> | any more. CHAR_MAX is there for a reason.
>
> It does not really matter. It is the compilation environment that matters,
> and for that we don't even do it right, so lint has every right to warn:
Why this bug in our headers is relevant to this discussion?
> [demoed with CHAR_MIN, because of easy access to machine with signed chars,
> you can do the opposite test on a machine with unsigned chars]
>
> [11:26am] 10018>cat char.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <limits.h>
>
> int
> main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> char c = argv[0][0];
> if (c == CHAR_MIN)
> printf("yes\n");
> return 0;
> }
> [11:26am] 10019>cc -funsigned-char -Wall char.c
> char.c: In function 'main':
> char.c:8: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of data
> type
>
> In reality I would expect a program using CHAR_MIN/CHAR_MAX to work properly
> with -fsigned-char or -funsigned-char in the default compilation environment.
> Yet, it does not.
-uwe
