Hi Stepan, * Stepan Kasal wrote on Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 05:02:40PM CEST: > the two aspects are: > > 1) If the information about signedness of char is needed at > build-time, it's better to use limits.h. Such projects should not > use AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED. That is why the manual should generally > recommend not to use the macro. Sure. We can and should do that in the manual. > 2) If signedness of char has to be known during configure time > AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED is still useful. Exactly. So the developer who decides that AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED is useful for him either cannot use autoconf -Wall any more, or is annoyed by the warning which is (then) wrong for him. Since this warning hints at an optimization rather than at a potential bug, IMVHO here a wrong warning is worse than no warning. > I'd also like to hear others' opinions. Sure, I'm happy to be overridden here. Note that Eric may be gone for a couple of weeks. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
