On Wednesday 28 March 2012 09:52, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 28 March 2012 08:38, Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru> > wrote: > > On 03/28/2012 02:36 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tuesday 27 March 2012 10:28:29 Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Is it known issue that uClibc 0.9.32 incorrectly prints -1 using > >>>> %hhd (and %hhi) specifier? The following program: > >>> > >>> please file a bug > >> > >> No need, this is bug #1783. > >> > >> It was closed as fixed-in-the-next-release when I reported it against > >> 0.9.31, but somehow the fix hasn't percolated into any release version of > >> uClibc yet. > >> > >> The fix is really simple. Just change the cast from "(char)" to "(signed > >> char)" in libc/stdio/_load_inttype.c . The bug was introduced not by any > >> change in the sourcecode itself, but because the Makefiles started > >> specifying -funsigned-char everywhere. > > And that's exactly why using -funsigned-char is a really bad idea.
I disagree. For char to have different signedness depending on the architecture is an additional thing to worry about when you write and test code. And people _do_ make mistakes in this area. It's not like there are major architectures where fixing char to be unsigned is a big performance hit. -- vda _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
