Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:57:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:57:33 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:64776 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:57:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:02:39 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Richard B. Johnson" cc: Martin Schwidefsky , Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390 (7/13): gcc 3.3 adaptions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1254 Lines: 46 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > I think you must keep these warnings in! There are many bugs > that these uncover uncluding loops that don't terminate correctly > but seem to work for "most all" cases. These are the hard-to-find > bugs that hit you six months after release. At least historically gcc has been so f*cking bad at the "unsigned vs signed" warnings that they are totally useless. Maybe things are better in gcc-3.3. Maybe not. > size_t i; > > while((i = do_forever()) > 0) > ; > > ... do_forever() finally errors out and returns -1 stuck(forever). Does gcc still warn about things like #define COUNT (sizeof(array)/sizeof(element)) int i; for (i = 0; i < COUNT; i++) ... where COUNT is obviously unsigned (because sizeof is size_t and thus unsigned)? Gcc used to complain about things like that, which is a FUCKING DISASTER. Any compiler that complains about the above should be shot in the head, and the warning should be killed. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/