lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: somebody dropped a (warning) bomb


    On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, J.A. Magallón wrote:
    >
    > Thats the point. Mmmm, I think I see it the other way around. I defined
    > a variable as 'signed' or 'unsigned', because the sign info matters for me.
    > And gcc warns about using a function on it that will _ignore_ or even
    > misinterpret that info. Could it be a BUG ? Yes.

    Sure. The other way of seeing it is that *anything* could be a bug.

    Could adding 1 to "a" be a bug? Yes. "a" might overflow. So maybe the
    compiler should warn about that too?

    So do you think a compiler should warn when you do

    int a = i + 1;

    and say "warning: Expression on line x might overflow"?

    Could it be a BUG? Hell yeah.

    Is warning for things that _could_ be bugs sane? Hell NO.

    > Linux/x86, gcc 4.1.2-0.20070115:
    > werewolf:~> gcc -Wpointer-sign -c t.c
    > t.c: In function ÿÿfÿÿ:
    > t.c:10: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ÿÿstrlenÿÿ differ in signedness
    > t.c:11: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ÿÿstrlenÿÿ differ in signedness

    Yeah, and that's what I think is crazy.

    Is it consistent? Yes. Does it help people? No.

    A warning that is consistent is not necessarily a good warning. It needs
    to MAKE SENSE too. And this one doesn't. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

    Linus
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-09 01:25    [W:2.239 / U:0.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site