Shouldn't the compiler behave in the following way, concerning the signedness
of pointer arguments?
void f (long *l, signed long *sl, unsigned long *ul);
// - Make NO assumptions about the signedness of *l and accept long,
// slong and ulong without a warning
// - treat *sl as signed long and produce a warning if given a long
// or unsigned long
// - treat *ul as unsigned long and produce a warning if given a
// long or signed long
long *l;
singend long *sl;
unsigned long *ul;
f ( l, sl, ul); // No Warning
f (sl, sl, ul); // No Warning
f (ul, sl, ul); // No Warning
f ( l, l, ul); // Warning on second argument
f ( l, ul, ul); // Warning on second argument
f ( l, sl, l); // Warning on third argument
f ( l, sl, sl); // Warning on third argument
Best regards
Rüdiger
> Code such as:
>
> void f(long *, unsigned long *);
>
> int main()
> {
> long *scp;
> unsigned long *ucp;
>
> ucp = scp;
> scp = ucp;
> f(ucp, scp);
> }
>
> is in violation of of the C standard. We silently accept such code,
> unless -pedantic (or better) is given. I didn't happen to see this
> listed in extentions.texi.
>
> This was put in:
>
> revision 1.91
> date: 1993/05/27 04:30:54; author: rms; state: Exp; lines: +6 -7
> (convert_for_assignment): When allowing mixing of
> signed and unsigned pointers, compare unsigned types not type sizes.
>
> in c-typeck.c, and before that (going back to 1.1), we always gave at
> least a warning. In C++, we give the warning. Other compilers give
> hard errors for these things.
>
> I propose to tighten this up to a warning, unconditionally. How to
> others feel? -Wall? -std=? Over my dead body?
>
> Apple Radar 2535328.
>
>
> 2003-10-06 Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * c-typeck.c (convert_for_assignment): Tighted up pointer converstions
> that differ in signedness.
>
