Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:27:47 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] s390 (7/13): gcc 3.3 adaptions. |
| |
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:02:39PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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.
Maybe... I suppose it's an implementation issue, because the lack of signedness issues is probably only noticeable after data value analysis.
Playing devil's advocate here, I actually don't mind it warning for a scenarion like this, because quite often it indicates an area where, if s/int/unsigned int/ is performed, the compiler could potentially do a better job of optimizing.
I agree your above specific example shouldn't trigger a warning [implementation excuses aside].
Jeff
- 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/
| |