On 2005-04-27 11:37:51 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Warnings are to help the programmer see where there is some code that, > although not necessarily an error, may require some attention. This > is a classic case of such a warning. This warning really does > indicate to the programmer that there might be a real problem.
On the other hand, too many warnings may annoy the programmer and have the opposite effect. > > and IMHO, there should be a way to disable it (possibly locally to > > some part of the program). > > Why not just fix the code? I don't like the word "fix" since it is correct. It could be probably OK here, but not necessarily a good thing in other contexts. In other places, spurious warnings given by gcc cannot be avoidable. > > But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right? > > > > The fact that they are not considered as constant expressions, > > is it due to the fact that the environment is allowed to modify > > them? > > It's due to what the C standard says. A const variable in C isn't a > constant, it's just a read-only variable. 1+1 isn't a constant either, but is allowed anyway. I'm talking about constant *expressions*. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
