RE: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (beta) now available

["Newman, Edward (iLO Firmware)" <Edward.Newman@...>]

VC8.  I will defend neither the intelligence nor the wisdom of the compiler, nor would I have chosen it.

Casting the expression to (char) (1.) should be harmless since buff is of type char *, and (2.) makes the warning go away.

It's just a request.

--EN

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of Sean Conner
> Sent: Thursday, 23 October, 2014 14:59
> To: Lua mailing list
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (beta) now available
> 
> It was thus said that the Great Roberto Ierusalimschy once stated:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > lstrlib.c, line 1142.  Change:
> > >    buff[islittle ? i : size - 1 - i] = (n & MC);
> > > To:
> > >    buff[islittle ? i : size - 1 - i] = (char)(n & MC);
> > > Explanation:  Prevents compiler warning about possible loss of data.
> >
> > This compiler seems quite dumb :-) How can (n & 0xFF) loose data??
> 
>   Being charitable [1], *technically* you are potentially losing
> information---values 128 to 255 may become -128 to -1, if chars are signed
> [2].
> 
>   -spc (Or it could be an utterly stupid compiler)
> 
> [1]	Like Microsoft needs any charity
> 
> [2]	C standard leaves the signness [3] of a bare 'char' declaration up
> 	to the implementation---it can be either signed or unsigned.
> 
> [3]	Is that even a word?