Re: Fix u32toutf8 so it encodes values > 0xFFFF correctly.

[Linda Walsh]

Eric Blake wrote:

> On 02/22/2012 05:19 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> > Eric Blake wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Not only can wchar_t can be either signed or unsigned, you also have to
> > > worry about platforms where it is only 16 bits, such as cygwin; on the
> > > other hand, wint_t is always 32 bits, but you still have the issue that
> > > it can be either signed or unsigned.
> >
> >
> > What platform uses unsigned wide ints?  Is that even posix compat?
>
> Yes, it is posix compatible to have wint_t be unsigned.  Not only that,
> but both glibc (32-bit wchar_t) and cygwin (16-bit wchar_t) use a 32-bit
> unsigned int for wint_t.  Any code that expects WEOF to be less than 0
> is broken.

----
        I never had any question that wchar_t could be signed or
unsigned.

        My question had to do with an unqualified wint_t not
unsigned wint_t and what platform existed where an 'int' type or
wide-int_t, was, without qualifiers, unsigned.  I still would like
to know -- and posix allows int/wide-ints to be unsigned without
the unsigned keyword?

That seems very confusing.