Re: Why AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED?

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Hallvard B Furuseth wrote on Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 07:25:27PM CEST:
> 
> Well, it is a _potential_ bug in code which uses of the C macro defined
> by AC_C_CHAR_UNSIGNED, though hopefully an unlikely one.  The reason I
> reacted to this in the first place was not that it can be "optimized"
> away, but that the macro invades the C implementation's namespace.  Some
> implementation could e.g. define __CHAR_UNSIGNED__ as a boolean - 0 for
> signed, 1 for unsigned. 

Good point.  If we have reason to believe that there exists such an
implementation, we should obsolete this macro.  As long as we don't,
I still feel a bit on the conservative side.

Thanks for pointing that out,
Ralf