[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again
|
From: |
David Levine |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again |
|
Date: |
Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:34:35 -0500 |
Ken wrote:
> With Lyndon's work on the buildbot (thanks, again!)
+many
> Okay, seems clear enough. But I'm wondering what the "right" solution
> is here. Should we simply convert things like the format engine over
> to use unsigned char for everything? Considering that we're starting
> to support 8-bit characters more and more, that seems like the best
> solution.
Agreed. I think we should chip away at these things.
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again,
David Levine <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/04
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Tom Lane, 2013/02/05
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Compiler warnings and signed vs. unsigned char, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/05