Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> But don't they in general obfuscate cases where the callee does want
> unsigned/signed chars ?
Well, it's ugly, but I don't think we have much choice. Seems to me
that changing to "unsigned char" throughout the backend would obfuscate
things *more* than coding <ctype.h> calls as
x = tolower((unsigned char) *p);
which is what I actually did.
There are lots of places where "char" variables are used that will never
see a <ctype.h> call. Do we institute a coding rule that plain "char"
is verboten in *all* cases, whether or not they're relevant to ctype
calls? If not, how do we check that "char" is being used safely?
Aren't we likely to get compiler warnings from passing "unsigned char *"
to libc functions that are declared to take plain "char *"?
I don't think that path is an improvement over a coding rule that ctype
functions must be applied to unsigned chars. IMHO the latter is less
intrusive overall, and no harder to check for violations.
> My concern stems from a very bad experience with wrong signedness of chars
> on AIX.
I agree that this is something we'll have to watch. I don't see any
cleaner answer, though.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Guenter||Date: 2000-12-04 20:28:10|
|Subject: Re: Using Threads?|
|Previous:||From: Larry Rosenman||Date: 2000-12-04 19:45:42|
|Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [CORE] Going Beta on Monday ...]|