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
Precedence: bulk

 
> 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.