Shouldn't the compiler behave in the following way, concerning the signedness
of pointer arguments?
void f (long *l, signed long *sl, unsigned long *ul);
// - Make NO assumptions about the signedness of *l and accept long,
//slong and ulong without a warning
// - treat *sl as signed l
Oh right, what I really meant was 'char' instead of 'long'.
In fact I just took the type from the referenced article. Sorry for that.
So am I right that the compiler should distinguish between char, signed char
and unsigned char in the proposed way?
>
> "long" and "signed long" are the same typ
