[TUHS] v7 K&R C
dot at dotat.at
Mon May 18 22:25:19 AEST 2020
Paul Winalski <paul.winalski at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why did the implementers of the Unix ABI for ARM decide to have char
> be unsigned? Was there an architectural reason for it?
The early ARM didn't have a sign-extended byte load instruction.
I learned C with the Norcroft ARM C compiler on the Acorn Archimedes in
1991/2ish. Norcroft C had quite a lot of unix flavour despite running on a
system that was not at all unixy. (I didn't get my hands on actual unix
until a couple of years later.) Acorn had a BSD port to the Archimedes
which I've never seen myself - the R260 was a pretty powerful system for
its time which I coveted from afar. I believe the 32 bit ARM ABI evolved
from the early 26 bit ABI on the Archimedes. (32 bit word, 26 bit address
More recent versions of the instruction set have more features. I believe
the arm64 ABI uses signed char to match what everyone is used to. I still
think unsigned bytes are more sensible, but that's what I was taught at an
f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: North 3 or 4, occasionally 5 later. Moderate, occasionally slight
in east. Fair. Good.
More information about the TUHS