Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:28:22 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm/slab.c remove impossible <0 check - size_t is not signed - patch is against 2.6.1-rc1-mm2 |
| |
On Thu, Jan 08 2004, Paul Jackson wrote: > Jason asked: > > Well, anything wrong in cleaning them [unsigned compare warnings] up? > > It's more important that we write code that will fit in our limited > human brains than that we write code that will avoid spurious warnings > from gcc ('spurious' meaning warnings for code that gcc will correctly > compile anyway). > > Or, see a couple months ago, in a thread with the Subject of: > > [PATCH] irda: fix type of struct irda_ias_set.attribute.irda_attrib_string.len > > in which Linus wrote: > > That's why I hate the "sign compare" warning of gcc so much - it warns > > about things that you CANNOT sanely write in any other way. That makes > > that particular warning _evil_, since it encourages people to write crap > > code.
That's fine and has its place, no doubt about that. It doesn't cover the patch in this thread though. The check is dead code. It's a cosmetic problem though, gcc should not generate the code checking for < 0.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |