On Tue, 1 May 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > Are you sure you want STRIP_NOPS rather than STRIP_SIGN_NOPS here? If so, > > could you ensure there are comments explaining why removing sign changes > > is safe in this context? > > For getting the original enumeral type of a expr, why would sign changes > matter?
What if the comparison is (unsigned) (expr_of_signed_enum_type) >= 0 ? (With GCC, the enum will have a signed type if one of its values is negative.) That seems worth a warning - the point of the patch as I understand it is to avoid warning for (expr_of_unsigned_enum_type) >= 0 because being unsigned there is an implementation-defined matter. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
