On Mon Oct 17 11, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm all for leaving it on because things like char are signed on some
> architectures and unsigned on others. This leads to bugs that only appear on
> one architecture. This warning will, at least, flag those usages.
-funsigned-char / -fsigned-char could
On Mon Oct 17 11, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't
> >> think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning.
> >> actually it's always nice to have such a seatbelt, in case som
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Matthias Andree wrote:
>> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't
>> think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning.
>> actually it's always nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody
>> changes the type to int and forgets to
I'm all for leaving it on because things like char are signed on some
architectures and unsigned on others. This leads to bugs that only appear on
one architecture. This warning will, at least, flag those usages.
On Oct 17, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Alexa
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:56:23AM -0700, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> > any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't
> > think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. actually
> > it's always nice to have such a s
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't
> think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. actually
> it's always nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody changes the
> type to int and forgets to intr
