lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] s390 (7/13): gcc 3.3 adaptions.

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> I think you must keep these warnings in! There are many bugs
> that these uncover uncluding loops that don't terminate correctly
> but seem to work for "most all" cases. These are the hard-to-find
> bugs that hit you six months after release.

At least historically gcc has been so f*cking bad at the "unsigned vs
signed" warnings that they are totally useless.

Maybe things are better in gcc-3.3.

Maybe not.


> size_t i;
>
> while((i = do_forever()) > 0)
> ;
>
> ... do_forever() finally errors out and returns -1 stuck(forever).

Does gcc still warn about things like

#define COUNT (sizeof(array)/sizeof(element))

int i;
for (i = 0; i < COUNT; i++)
...

where COUNT is obviously unsigned (because sizeof is size_t and thus
unsigned)?

Gcc used to complain about things like that, which is a FUCKING DISASTER.

Any compiler that complains about the above should be shot in the head,
and the warning should be killed.

Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans