In message <199503281405.GAA18002@basalt.SJ.XENOTROPIC.COM>,
	Chris G Demetriou writes:
>Jason Downs said:
>>> Huh?  I can only think of two or three systems that even have unsigned char
>s
>>> as the native, and neither of them run NetBSD (currently).
>>> 
>>> If NetBSD ever runs on an unsigned char box, the programs will probably
>>> get fixed.  Otherwise, why bother?  Almost everything uses signed chars.
>
>The Marshall Midden said:
>> I wish to take issue with the above.  Is someone posts fixes, please
>> incorporate them.  Thanks!
>
>I definitely agree with the latter; one of the things that (at least) I
>am trying to do with NetBSD make it a portable system.  (Hence my
>interest in doing the Alpha port; 64-bit machines are rare but
>interesting, these days.)

My point, which everyone missed, was quite simple:  If there aren't any
machines with unsigned chars running NetBSD, why waste time fixing
the user-land?  There are more important things to do.

I've been doing development on various IBM's for many, many years.  IBM
loves unsigned chars, and I know first hand how much of a can of worms
this is going to be.

Eventually, there will be unsigned char machines running NetBSD.
The original poster told me he's porting things to an ARM platform.
And the IBM RT will go as soon as people stop hoarding the code.
And no doubt the RS/6000, eventually.

--
Jason Downs           | GCS/CM -d+ H(+++) s+:++ !g p? !au w+ v-(*)
downsj@xenotropic.com | C++(+++) UBAVHS++++$ P--- E--- N+++ W--- M-- V--
                      | po++++ K---- Y+(++) t+ 5- jx R- G'' tv b+++ D--(---)
		      | B---- u--- h* f? r* n---(----) y+