From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-47381-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30772 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2007 08:54:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 30759 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2007 08:54:15 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.22)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:54:09 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-36-219.inter.net.il [80.230.36.219]) 	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id FWT21509 (AUTH halo1); 	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:53:57 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:54:00 -0000
Message-Id: <u1wlicgnj.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070125113206.GA26448@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (message 	from Jan Kratochvil on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:32:06 +0100)
Subject: Re: [RFC] Signed/unsigned character arrays are not strings
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20070125015422.GA19113@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <u8xfrd9ay.fsf@gnu.org> <20070125113206.GA26448@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00530.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:32:06 +0100
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> > 
> > I must say I'm uneasy about this.  Signedness could be random.  What
> > will happen on platforms where `char' is unsigned by default?
> 
> I had to find an answer to your interesting comment now myself:
> 
> # The string identification works despite the compiler flags below due to
> # gdbtypes.c:
> #   if (name && strcmp (name, "char") == 0)
> #     TYPE_FLAGS (type) |= TYPE_FLAG_NOSIGN;

Thanks, I withdraw my objections.

> +@code{-funsigned-char} @value{GCC} options have no effect as @value{GDBN}

Please use @value{NGCC}, not @value{GCC}.  The former produces output
similar to @value{GDBN}, the latter produces a literal lowercase "gcc".

> +* Arrays of specifically SIGNED or UNSIGNED CHARs are now printed as arrays
> +  of numbers.

I think "explicitly SIGNED or UNSIGNED..." is a better wording.

Thanks.