On 27 March 2014 23:37, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
>>
>> There are some known bugs in -Wconversion and nobody working on them,
>> so if you are still interested in helping, I can give you some hints
>> on where your help will be very welcome.
>
> Could you please go ahead and show me the failing cases?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 27/03/14 09:52, Florian Weimer wrote:> On 03/27/2014 08:44 AM,
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/26/2014 03:05 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>>
assigning a negative literal to an unsigned variable issues no
warning:
Quoting Andrew Haley :
On 03/27/2014 08:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 03/27/2014 08:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/26/2014 03:05 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
assigning a negative literal to an unsigned variable issues
no warning:
unsigned int x;
x =- 4;
This is specially
On 03/27/2014 08:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 08:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 03/26/2014 03:05 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>
>>> assigning a negative literal to an unsigned variable issues no warning:
>>>
>>>
>>> unsigned int x;
>>> x =- 4;
>>>
>>> This is speciall
On 27 March 2014 08:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Yes, this warning needs to take whitespace into account. But then, I
> suppose it would be fine.
That's what I was thinking. I've never seen someone write x =- 4 intentionally.
People who write x=-4 without any whitespace at all would just have to
On 27/03/14 09:52, Florian Weimer wrote:> On 03/27/2014 08:44 AM,
Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 03/26/2014 03:05 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>
>>> assigning a negative literal to an unsigned variable issues no warning:
>>>
>>>
>>> unsigned int x;
>>> x =- 4;
>>>
>>> This is specially impor
On 03/27/2014 08:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/26/2014 03:05 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
assigning a negative literal to an unsigned variable issues no warning:
unsigned int x;
x =- 4;
This is specially important in typos when -= was intended instead of =-
Would be acceptable
> From: Andrew Haley [mailto:a...@redhat.com]
>
> 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 t
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 lo
> 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. Thin
Hi,
On 03/26/2014 03:05 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
> assigning a negative literal to an unsigned variable issues no warning:
>
>
>unsigned int x;
>x =- 4;
>
> This is specially important in typos when -= was intended instead of =-
>
> Would be acceptable if I add a new warning to ha
11 matches
Mail list logo
