From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68635 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2016 18:07:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 68623 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jan 2016 18:07:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=raising, wary, voice X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:07:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F220B341AD9; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 18:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-204-137.brq.redhat.com [10.40.204.137]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u08I7404007855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:07:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:07:00 -0000 From: Marek Polacek To: Bernd Schmidt Cc: Joseph Myers , GCC Patches Subject: Re: C PATCH to rectify warning for character types (PR c/23087) Message-ID: <20160108180704.GM31604@redhat.com> References: <20160107171127.GK31604@redhat.com> <568FF7D8.60004@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <568FF7D8.60004@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00446.txt.bz2 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