On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:44:46PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/29/2015 08:08 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> >As discussed elsewhere, -Wtautological-compare shouldn't warn about
>> >floating-point types because of the way NaN behave.
>> >
>>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:44:46PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/29/2015 08:08 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >As discussed elsewhere, -Wtautological-compare shouldn't warn about
> >floating-point types because of the way NaN behave.
> >
> >I've been meaning to commit this one as obvious, but I'm not
On 07/29/2015 08:08 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
As discussed elsewhere, -Wtautological-compare shouldn't warn about
floating-point types because of the way NaN behave.
I've been meaning to commit this one as obvious, but I'm not sure
whether I should also use HONOR_NANS or whether I can safely igno
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 04:08:22PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> As discussed elsewhere, -Wtautological-compare shouldn't warn about
> floating-point types because of the way NaN behave.
>
> I've been meaning to commit this one as obvious, but I'm not sure
> whether I should also use HONOR_NANS or
As discussed elsewhere, -Wtautological-compare shouldn't warn about
floating-point types because of the way NaN behave.
I've been meaning to commit this one as obvious, but I'm not sure
whether I should also use HONOR_NANS or whether I can safely ignore
that here.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64