On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 9:44 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
> On 02/02/2021 17:22, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > > OK. This one surprised me (and I'm sure I'm not the only one.) > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 7:42 AM Sebastian Huber > > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > > <mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de>> wrote: > > > > Change _Objects_Build_name() so that the result is independent of the > > signedness of char. > > > > Close #4228. > > > I don't think it is practically an issue, however, if you want to > specify this function, then it gets a problem. You would have to write > something like: Where the char is signed, ... > > Maybe. I wrote a simple program because I was curious about this behavior. int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { unsigned char a = 0xff; signed char b = 0xff; printf("(uint32_t)a: %u\n(uint32_t)b %u\n", (uint32_t)a, (uint32_t)b); printf("(uint32_t)(uint8_t)a: %u\n(uint32_t)(uint8_t)b %u\n", (uint32_t)(uint8_t)a, (uint32_t)(uint8_t)b); return 0; } $ ./a.out (uint32_t)a: 255 (uint32_t)b 4294967295 (uint32_t)(uint8_t)a: 255 (uint32_t)(uint8_t)b 255 So, you would get some maybe unpleasant behavior if you have a signed char in the less-significant bytes that you end up sign-extending through the more significant bytes. > -- > embedded brains GmbH > Herr Sebastian HUBER > Dornierstr. 4 > 82178 Puchheim > Germany > email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16 > fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München > Registernummer: HRB 157899 > Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler > Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier: > https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/ > >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
