Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> Hmmm. You know that the signedness of char is not defined? > > It is defined, but implementation-defined. Maybe you mean > that "plain" char is a separate type from both signed char > and unsigned char?
Mostly. I wanted to say that the signedness of char is implementation-defined and differs between the linux targets on different architectures (see S390 vs. the rest for an example). >> Besides that, we definitely should enable -fno-strict-aliasing in the >> gcc flags until we have audited all casts. > > Well certainly as long as GCC keeps spitting warnings about > this, it almost never gets these warnings wrong. I don't know whether it is spitting warnings about aliasing, but we're violating the aliasing rules described in the gcc man page. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/ -- linuxbios mailing list [email protected] http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
