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

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> But that's not the point. It's the runtime value of i that gets converted
> (to unsigned), not the compile time value of COUNT. Thus if i ever gets
> negative you have a problem.

The point is that the compiler should see that the run-time value of i is
_obviously_never_negative_ and as such the warning is total and utter

The compiler actually does end up doing some of that kind of analysis when
optimizing, since it is required for some of the loop optimizations
anyway. But the warning is emitted before the analysis has taken place.

In other words, gcc is stupidly warning about something that is obviously
not an error. And it is obviously not an error because:

- array indexes are "int". They aren't size_t, and never have been. Thus
it is _correct_ to use "int" for the index. You write

int array[5];

and you do NOT write

int array[5UL];

and anybody who writes 'array[5UL]' is considered a stupid git and a
geek. Face it.

Claiming that you should index an array with a size_t is crap.

- the way this has traditionally always been done is the example I
posted. Warning about correct, obvious, and traditional code is WRONG,
if it causes the programmer to have to write something _less_ obvious
just to make a stupid compiler warning go away makes the warnign WORSE

And yes, gcc could do the work necessary to only give the warning if it
actually has reason to believe that the code is wrong. As it is, it gives
the warning for code that is good.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.068 / U:2.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site