lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] s390 (7/13): gcc 3.3 adaptions.
From
Date
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:

|> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote:
|> > |>
|> > |> 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
|> > |> crap.
|> >
|> > This requires a complete analysis of the loop body, which means that the
|> > warning must be moved down from the front end (the common type of the
|> > operands only depends on the type of the operands, not of any current
|> > value of the expressions).
|>
|> So? Gcc does that anyway. _Any_ good compiler has to.

But the point is that determining the common type does not require _any_
kind of data flow analysis, and this is the place where the unsigned
warning is generated.

|> Trivial example:
|>
|> int x[2][2];
|>
|> int main(int argc, char **argv)
|> {
|> return x[1][-1];
|> }
|>
|>
|> the above is actually a well-defined C program, and 100%
|> standards-conforming ("strictly conforming").

This isn't as trivial as it seems. Look in comp.std.c for recent
discussions on this topic (out-of-array references).

Andreas.

--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
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:0.048 / U:1.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site