From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 28881 invoked from network); 17 May 2020 16:15:12 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 May 2020 16:15:12 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id ABB119C62E; Mon, 18 May 2020 02:15:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C82D9C5E1; Mon, 18 May 2020 02:14:55 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=mxes.net header.i=@mxes.net header.b="BdqvBi42"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 48D4E9C5E1; Mon, 18 May 2020 02:14:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp-out-3.mxes.net (smtp-out-3.mxes.net [198.205.123.68]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A90289C5E0 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 02:14:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from Customer-MUA (mua.mxes.net [10.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99B9275964; Sun, 17 May 2020 12:14:50 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mxes.net; s=mta; t=1589732090; bh=zQFvFzzNubLZEuFYn6a9aIwF8iHhinY2Knbi9rQSm/Q=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BdqvBi42itxHzzjE0SUOIGYEahdBDbBsJpn6cARr0DgQQ+fRDOvGXz491eAApTsHC xlubHWx2ID6Oz4upvt+YJuIy/lMLkL1HcQZlo+qfkJlaj5ZVYT6QRa6bS4gGYfnpHS U0s+VEXtGPq1e68xRaFUNMR/MZuvU85O6MhvJToY= From: To: "'Derek Fawcus'" , References: <20200515213138.8E0F72D2D71E@macaroni.inf.ed.ac.uk> <20200517161055.GA5127@clarinet.employees.org> In-Reply-To: <20200517161055.GA5127@clarinet.employees.org> Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 12:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: <064701d62c66$4b084d90$e118e8b0$@ronnatalie.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQLwRcJG/9QczLTc2cBhlW55PVtCnQGVU5oApmuV9QA= Content-Language: en-us X-Sent-To: Subject: Re: [TUHS] v7 K&R C X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" It technically probably always should have. Void* (which has the same format as char*) would have accepted either type pointer, char* shouldn't, though I suspect that early compilers that predate void* would have happily converted any pointer to char* (or int for that matter). -----Original Message----- From: TUHS On Behalf Of Derek Fawcus Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 12:11 PM To: tuhs@tuhs.org Subject: Re: [TUHS] v7 K&R C On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Richard Tobin wrote: > "The implementation shall define char to have the same range, > representation, and behavior as either signed char or unsigned char." > - C99 > > (Technically it's a separate type from both of them.) I was about to suggest I'd yet to come across a compiler which handled them that way, but on checking I find that both clang and gcc do now in effect have 3 types. i.e. both 'unsigned char *' and 'signed char *' values passed to a function taking 'char *' raises a warning. I wonder when they started doing that? DF