From:	Andrew Crabtree <andrewc AT typhoon DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Message-Id:	<199802111821.AA191031265@typhoon.rose.hp.com>
Subject:	Re: char != unsigned char... sometimes, sigh (long)
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:21:04 PST
Cc:	Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be, dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980211114656.15677A-100000@is>; from "Eli Zaretskii" at Feb 11, 98 11:48 am
Reply-To:	andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com

 
> It would be interesting to know why did GCC choose signed char for
> x86.  Does anybody know?  Should we ask the GCC maintainers?  Or maybe 
> somebody can tell what are the advantages of signed char?
This is just a guess, but presumably compatibility with an existing
system (like BSD).  SIGNED_CHAR is the default for all x86 targets 
though, not just bsd derivatives, so maybe something else.

- Raw text -