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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 22:00:22 EST