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, 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.065 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site