[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: using the interfaces in ctype.h
>>> .. if (isspace((unsigned char) buf)) ...
>>> won't work if isspace() is in-line and there's not enough casting
>>> in the macro.
>> I can't see how it could fail. Could you give an example?
> It will fail by generating the warning which prevents compilation
> with -Werror on some machines.
Which warning is that? I can't seem to find the thread-starting
message, and I certainly haven't gotten any warnings when using casts
to unsigned char (which presumably just means I'm not using whichever
-W option turns that warning on).
> (Apparently there are some compilers that complain about indexing
> using (unsigned chars) -- probably those machines on which char is
> identical to unsigned char, but I'm guessing.)
I'd consider such a warning broken, since indexing with unsigned char
is well-defined and safe. Your mention of -Werror makes me think
you're talking about gcc, but "some compilers" makes me think you're
not. If I had to build my code with a compiler that warned about that
and couldn't turn the warning off, I'd disable -Werror or its analog,
filter out the warning in my cc wrapper, and forget the issue.
>> warnings from some compiler versions about "array subscript has type
>> char", which let a coder catch such sloppy code; while this doesn't
>> apply to 3.1's compiler in my experience,
> It happens for 3.1 and gcc for x86.
Interesting. It does for me too, when I try it now.
I wonder why I thought it didn't.
> I can't find a place where C99 requires that any implementation of a
> function-like macro for a library function be "warning-equivalent" to
> calling the library function.
I don't think there is any such requirement. A compiler is required to
produce "at least one diagnostic" in some circumstances, but as far as
I know it is never required to *not* produce diagnostics.
> In other words, C99 does not require that isspace(x) be
> "warning-equivalent" to (isspace)(x). But I happen to think that
> it's in the spirit of the specification for isspace(x), even though I
> agree that doing so may be inconvenient.
I believe that they should be semantically equivalent in terms of what
the generated code does. I see no particular reason to go out of our
way to make them warning-equivalent, especially when that means
silencing a warning which helps catch misuses.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents.montreal.qc.ca@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |