Re: C PATCH to rectify warning for character types (PR c/23087)

[Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 06:54:32PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/07/2016 10:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> 
> >I don't think it's desirable to raise the warning for this case under
> >different conditions from the warning for other signedness cases.  The
> >targets do differ in signedness - it's just that the difference is between
> >"plain" and "signed" or "plain" and "unsigned", not between signed and
> >unsigned.  Maybe the warning message should be more specific in this case,
> >but not a less-specific "incompatible" which is what this patch would
> >achieve.
> 
> I was going to voice the same opinion yesterday but forgot to hit Send. If
> you consider signedness of char a tri-state, then there's nothing wrong with
> the warning message.

Well, it's been discussed at length in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23087
It seems sort of weird to me to say that 'char' and 'signed char' do differ in
signedness when I know that my machine uses signed chars by default.  But I'm
wary of raising the warning -- it's likely to cause more uproar.  At this point
I don't know if I actually want to pursue this further, likely not.  Yet I'd
like to resolve this very old PR one way or another.

	Marek