Hello, * Richard Ash wrote on Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 06:27:57PM CEST: > Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: > > What's the point of the AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED macro? > > "If the C type `char' is unsigned, define `__CHAR_UNSIGNED__', > > unless the C compiler predefines it." > > > > This is what <limits.h> is for. If you want to know if char is > > unsigned, try #if CHAR_MIN == 0. I would suggest at least mentioning > > that option in the doc for AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED. FWIW, I don't see a problem with this; but I'm not the most experienced in this area. > That assumes you have a correct limits.h on the system, which is an > assumption you can't necessarily make on an old enough system. Do you have any specific examples here, found outside of a museum? Current Autoconf more or less tells users to assume C89 for new programs, and limits.h exists in a free-standing implementation, too. > It also > assumes that the compiler matches the headers, which again might be wrong > if someone has messed up a third party compiler install. I don't think Autoconf should need to cater for intentionally broken systems (except maybe in order to solve bootstrapping issues). Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
