On 03/27/2014 08:05 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: >> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of >> Andrew Haley >> >> Assigning a negative literal to an unsigned variable is well-defined >> standard C. Is it really appropriate to warn for correct code? > > There is lots of cases where gcc warn construct in correct > code. Think for instance at unused variables. I think this is the > same kind of situation here: the construct is valid but for many (or > at least some) users it's not something they are likely to use and > might indicate an error. I think the rationale provided by Daniel is > sound.
Really? I suppose we'll have to agree to differ. The trouble with warnings like this is that they trigger far too frequently on good (i.e. correct, reasonable, just as the programmer intended) code. They bring warnings into disrepute. They also cause people to do extra work just to shut the compiler up, and this often IME leads to inadvertent code breakage. I suppose the one good thing about this warning is that it can easily be shut up by casting the literal to unsigned. Andrew.
