On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 02:07:17PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > > I disagree with this change. ?If the compiler picked a signed type for > > the enum (as it is allowed to do) then the comparison is useful. > > Ah didn't realize that an enum could be signed. That's annoying. > > What if I checked if TYPE_IS_SIGNED and only did the comparison in > that case? I'd rather not suppress the warning as I think it's fairly > useful (caught patch 2 for example). Do you think it's worth it, or > is too ugly? If I did it, I would reorder the patches so that the > TYPE_IS_SIGNED patch is first.
If that suppresses the warning then that's OK with me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
