Re: [9fans] another compiler bug (another try to send this coherently)

["Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>]

forsyth@vitanuova.com wrote:
> i thought that was one of the areas where the rules had changed with ANSI C
> and assumed ken thompson had implemented the rules he knew!

That would certainly account for it.
Note that "rules had changed" is a bit of an overstatement;
there was some uncertainty in that area, and different
implementors had done it differently, so we had to decide
what the rules should be.  The argument that preserving
valued rather than signedness of type was less apt to lead
to silent surprises won out.  It is true that previous AT&T
(Bell Labs) compilers had done it the other way around.
There is no need to reopen the argument now (personally I
would have preferred a third alternative).