Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:25:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:25:48 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:55825 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:25:47 -0500 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Richard B. Johnson" , Martin Schwidefsky , Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390 (7/13): gcc 3.3 adaptions. X-Yow: Do I have a lifestyle yet? From: Andreas Schwab Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:35:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:02:39 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090015 (Oort Gnus v0.15) Emacs/21.3.50 References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 917 Lines: 29 Linus Torvalds writes: |> 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. How can you distinguish that from other occurrences of (int)<(size_t)? Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 N?rnberg Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different." - 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/