From:	<ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200212011005.gB1A5Cw22958@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: printf and the 'hh' conversion specifier (C99) [PATCH]
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1021201092042.17170A-100000@is> "from Eli Zaretskii
	at Dec 1, 2002 09:21:59 am"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sun, 1 Dec 2002 11:05:12 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamScore:	s
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, Richard Dawe wrote:
> > This is shorter than a short - a char. The only change that concerns
> > me is:
> > 
> >     ARG(int);
> > 
> > switched to:
> > 
> >     ARG(signed);
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure this is equivalent.
> 
> Yes, I think so, since our `int' is a signed data type.

But why is the change necessary then? Isn't is better to really
specify the type as explicit as possible? (Like "signed int" in this
case.)


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -