[Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Martin Mathieson wrote:

> For the more general problem, I see 2 possible solutions:
> (1) have both signed and values in the union, and use the appropriate
> signed or unsigned parts of the union in the comparison functions
> (2) leave the union as it is with unsigned members, cast values in all
> the signed versions instead of the unsigned versions

I vote for solution 1 (and have everything that adds a signed value to 
the protocol tree set the signed value in the union).