https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_management#Complexity_Hiding
So, most of the point has already been gotten to, but why was it that you
wanted to call something what it was explicitly not?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote:
> On 07.10.2014 19:47, Erlo Haugen wrote:
> > After the change, the compiler will naturally catch assignment of
> > negative values to char,
>
> It should give a
>
> warning 158: overflow in implicit constant conversion
>
> but this seems to be partially broken for chars. Currently none of
>
> char z = 255;
> signed char s = 255;
> unsigned char u = -128;
>
> gives this warning, no matter if char is signed or not.
>
> > check for loop bounds
>
> Yes. It does:
>
> warning 94: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
>
> Philipp
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
> Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
> Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
> Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Sdcc-user mailing list
> Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
