From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13596 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 16:28:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13587 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 16:28:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mirapoint1.tis.cwru.edu) (129.22.104.46) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 16:28:28 -0000 Received: from multivac.cwru.edu (multivac.ITS.CWRU.Edu [129.22.114.26]) by mirapoint1.tis.cwru.edu (MOS 3.4.3-CR) with SMTP id CTX82705; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:26:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 27910 invoked by uid 500); 8 Oct 2004 16:26:58 -0000 To: Joe Buck Cc: Nick Ing-Simmons , jamie@shareable.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "'Morten Welinder'" , Dave Korn Subject: Re: signed vs unsigned pointer warning In-Reply-To: <20041008091714.A1695@synopsys.com> (Joe Buck's message of "Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:17:14 -0700") References: <20040922161751.B4F6A1422D53@darter.rentec.com> <20040926192142.GA29842@mail.shareable.org> <20040926192142.GA29842@mail.shareable.org> <20041008130623.9516.4@llama.elixent.com> <20041008091714.A1695@synopsys.com> From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: Joe Buck , Nick Ing-Simmons , jamie@shareable.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "'Morten Welinder'" , Dave Korn Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:28:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00360.txt.bz2 Joe Buck wrote: > Why can't an implementation define isxxx(c) to return something like > table_lookup[(unsigned)(c)] > ? Assuming EOF==-1, that fails to distinguish between EOF and character 255 (as does the 384-element table in the case where a signed char is passed). The ctype macros are supposed to accept EOF as well as unsigned char values. paul