Subject: Re: isspace and compiler warnings
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Alan Barrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/19/2006 07:57:33
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, David Laight wrote:
> This shows up another fubar in the ansi C 'value preserving' integral
> promotions (as opposed to the K&R 'signed preserving').
I don't think I've ever encountered a case where value preserving
is more useful than signed preserving. In most cases, either the
difference is not noticeable, or signed preserving is more useful. I
have no idea what the committee was thinking, breaking old code and
replacing useful behaviour with confusing behaviour.
And I can't find a GCC warning for "signed preserving is not what you
--apb (Alan Barrett)