[855] in Kerberos-V5-bugs
Re: appl/bsd patches....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Fri Oct 14 00:05:52 1994
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 00:05:47 +0500
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>
Cc: epeisach@MIT.EDU, krb5-bugs@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Ken Raeburn's message of Thu, 13 Oct 1994 23:02:44 -0400,
<9410140302.AA09254@>
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 23:02:44 -0400
I disagree, slightly. The signedness shouldn't matter, as long as
it's consistent. Leaving it unspecified lets the host do sign- or
zero-extension, whichever is more convenient. (In fact, on many cpus
that can do byte comparisons, any compiler with a good optimizer
should simply not extend either value in this case, if the signedness
is made consistent.)
The problem is that you can't leave it unspecified since the comparison
must either be against 255 or -1. So you have to know whether or not
chars are signed or unsigned.
If you think I'm missing something, can you send me patches of how you
would modify krlogind in this case?
- Ted
