From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85CE81FE46D for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2025 01:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763342412; cv=none; b=dfLk52IOz7jCLdFQpmaIaEoK3f4alGMwOmKPFU/+Zo9eIa+UOT6ZWbnsLsuqAF+Wxo0zgGczalTVCWj5agO9STOb20zuF9Gy2TDqQLgy4dmnDdTS7UkSaj4/jCULd6cfAhEqXweROl/i8jdQ1Dod7H8EcZ9Tw2YSioInDoC2Mnw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763342412; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uwQN50aVAarcndfYoV6O1Pj+7CzTxqne6BOjmBIqGjE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QLAAtRPlVt41m58lbXyQDYPzJBBGZQgSQkEps/9ETdScPZXz6Sz2i8xSRlvGj/LS4mfsmrKJAFmIRBaRgKyg20zimz8XuONC5KixjXFjYTtS+jHyq4WsKWDUUKxcamsi0I6K3TsvP/ARR9jEOWkMQ+tcBTM1lNd7vQTycHj4hfM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=kOicZaJw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=hs9BTWa5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="kOicZaJw"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="hs9BTWa5" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7957D1D00168; Sun, 16 Nov 2025 20:20:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 16 Nov 2025 20:20:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1763342409; x=1763428809; bh=rjiZQPqzxz kHwn6lhBkBQ0bQi+AZPA5LjF0ACsMYpS8=; b=kOicZaJwQK9Ks8LNVDN1l2k3ng oMSHVtkV3HVwA215lsv0TV4sM5iGddTq/TH30flBRzo30F9PGDqW15aZstCi/eV/ m8X7mlDsZOfoU2Kp2RtrxmesgxkA1StD55XDI8yZjwSo/8bMi7tUVsCcL5HRf+Ki 3jLUXhqci9vpSs71n4RxvPnesuEKJ4fpvFJr+beLDshvp3Zr+YBXL0XbC+SPQiML 40WXdR+kPuX4SwqDFFZfxOAjOCsiij3WvdqFg1kTuSUF3ayTVt7Mghs3WD8BA4y5 tVZjuTIaOpXZF2RhkAgzY5HUGBS/m4puqt+vKzJVdiFuy5E/GqHdHl71PUKw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1763342409; x=1763428809; bh=rjiZQPqzxzkHwn6lhBkBQ0bQi+AZPA5LjF0 ACsMYpS8=; b=hs9BTWa5m+XPW+4O5XW69fpxregO8VSohT6zllnMqkvHzpHA4en vgBjQUn2NPDD+fyz7hWf5TygBy/aph9/3/1K3bL+XAQdHmCMYJdKioHQOtslrusm dPGQNy1XPUtC3wWE2IYNxm+h78Jy1LLzx5eERyvKSl810jHWohYSK2GqTwL41m88 4IdvYh2rNWlU0emlt7SUtR4M7jJnqGy3gp+o8yyv3H4J2Ioni+P8HGHWwjoIDSSk HQfzLJ46d82pKdY23qyYCrRo2/fsTwDtbtlL3yda/GEMOenLhpq6VxeV5aUdLb6k y+lIEAhYRPP3Rbbh5Q5XRurpN3u21t3aZ+A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddvudejuddvucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddtpdhmohguvgep shhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehrrghmshgrhiesrhgrmhhsrgihjhhonhgvshdrph hluhhsrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepvgiivghkihgvlhhnvgifrhgvnhesghhmrghilhdr tghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegsvghnrdhknhhosghlvgesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtph htthhopehgihhtghhithhgrggughgvthesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehg ihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhrihhsthhofhhfvg hrhhgruhhgshgsrghkkhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehp khhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougduvdefsehgmhgrihhlrd gtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheptghhrhhishdrthhorhgvkhesghhmrghilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 16 Nov 2025 20:20:08 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Ramsay Jones , Ezekiel Newren Cc: Ben Knoble , Ezekiel Newren via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Kristoffer Haugsbakk , Patrick Steinhardt , Phillip Wood , Chris Torek Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/10] doc: define unambiguous type mappings across C and Rust In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Sat, 15 Nov 2025 08:42:15 -0800") References: <23b7fd8a-2b50-4da3-bc8a-3727ee99654f@ramsayjones.plus.com> <5A740EE4-D545-4828-8D38-E0E5E9F87A3E@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2025 17:20:07 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Junio C Hamano writes: > Me neither, but I suspect it may mostly use of non-word "signless" > that is the issue. So, the patch text that claims C's "char" is "signless" still needs to be updated, I think. The problematic paragraph (with a bit of rewrapping) reads like this: C comparison problem: While the sign of `char` is implementation defined, it's also signless (neither signed nor unsigned). When building with `make DEVELOPER=1` it will complain about a "differ in signedness" when `char` is compared with `uint8_t` or `int8_t`. Perhaps The C language leaves the signedness of `char` implementation defined. Because our developer build enables -Wsign-compare, comparison of a value of `char` type with either signed or unsigned integers will trigger warnings from the compiler. Avoiding `char` of implementation defined signedness helps us being a bit more explicit. or something is sufficient?