Re: [gpsd-dev] ARM port problem in rtcm3.2 handling

[Gary E. Miller]

Yo Hal!

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:47:04 -0700
Hal Murray <address@hidden> wrote:

> address@hidden said:
> > Interesting.  Been a while since I dug out the C99 standard.  I had
> > assumed char was always signed, but C99 Section 6.2.5 15) clearly
> > sates a char may be either the same as signed char or as unsigned
> > char.  
> 
> > I had been thinking that since fiexed width type (uint88_t, etc.)
> > are in C99 we should use those instead.  But I see in C99 7.1.1.1 3
> > that fixed width types are optional.  I don't recall that ever
> > causing us trouble.   
> 
> So what do I do if I want a signed 8 bit int?

Use Intel?  :-)

Or:
        signed char  C99 Section 6.2.5 1
        int8_t       C99 optional Section 7.8.1.1 1

>  How would you have
> fixed this if the ARM was wrong?

Huh?  Lost me?  What hypothetical bug would I hypothetically be fixing?

If I was thought it wass something like a compiler bug I would just
mask it:
        ((unsigned int)(char 0x80)) & 0xff

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
        address@hidden  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

pgpwJpJ8PFnNu.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature