Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:43:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:43:27 -0500 Received: from havoc.daloft.com ([64.213.145.173]:46562 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:43:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:53:35 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Richard B. Johnson" , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390 (7/13): gcc 3.3 adaptions. Message-ID: <20030224215335.GA24975@gtf.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 860 Lines: 29 On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:35:24PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > 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)? The bounds are obviously constant and unsigned at compile time. Jeff - 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/