[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Stepan Kasal
Subject: Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:02:40 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Hello Ralf,

the two aspects are:

1) If the information about signedness of char is needed at
build-time, it's better to use limits.h.  Such projects should not
use AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED.  That is why the manual should generally
recommend not to use the macro.

2) If signedness of char has to be known during configure time
AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED is still useful.

About the patch I posted:
I would like to advertise 1).  Thusly, I'd prefer if "autoconf -Wall"
printed out the message that AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED is probably no longer
If someone needs to know the signedness at configure time, they can
perform a check based on limits.h or copy the body of
AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED.  I believe this need is relatively rare, so the
slight discomfort is well overweighted by the fact that the warning
message help to squash the unnecesary AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED in many

Ralf, does the above convert you to approve my patch?

I'd also like to hear others' opinions.

Have a nice day,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]