On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:01 PM Erik Rijkers <e...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> Recently (last day or so), I get this warning from gcc 10.2:
>
> -----
> hba.c:3160:18: warning: comparison of unsigned enum expression < 0 is always
> false [-Wtautological-compare]
> if (auth_method < 0 || USER_AUTH_LAST < auth_method)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ~
> 1 warning generated.
> -----
This one is from 9afffcb833d3c5e59a328a2af674fac7e7334fc1 (adding
Jacob and Michael to cc)
And it makes sense to give warning on that. AuthMethod is an enum. It
can by definition not have a value that's not in the enum. That check
simply seems wrong/unnecessary.
The only other use fo USER_AUTH_LAST is in fill_hba_line() which also
gets the name of the auth. That one uses :
StaticAssertStmt(lengthof(UserAuthName) == USER_AUTH_LAST + 1,
"UserAuthName[] must match the UserAuth enum");
Which seems like a more reasonable check.
But that also highlights -- shouldn't that function then also be made
to use hba_authname(), and the assert moved into the function? That
seems like the cleanest way?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
