[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED? |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:58:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:44:44AM CEST:
> Or would it help to put it all to one message?
>
> > AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED: The macro is obsolete. Instead of checking
> > __CHAR_UNSIGNED__, include limits.h and test for CHAR_MIN == 0.
>
> If your autotools maintainer cannot do that, you shall return him for
> replacement of defective parts. ;-)
The (well, my) argument is not whether the maintainer can or cannot do
this, but whether he may not *want* to do it for some reason, and if so,
whether we still grant him a working -Wobsolete with that decision.
Maybe we need a new switch -Wbest-practices that would govern your
warning? It could be enabled by default. I know of a few other
-Wobsolete warnings that could be moved there (because some obsolete
constructs don't have equivalent new formulations). It would be good
if third-party macros (like Libtool's) could have a way of emitting
best-practices warnings, too.
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/24
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/06/24
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/25
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/06/25
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Andreas Schwab, 2008/06/25
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Hallvard B Furuseth, 2008/06/28
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/06/26
- Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/06/25