Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:24:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:24:01 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:49168 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:24:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:28:49 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Andreas Schwab cc: "Richard B. Johnson" , 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: 969 Lines: 25 On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote: > |> > |> 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)? Which is indeed my point. If you cannot distinguish it from incorrect uses, you shouldn't be warnign the user, because the compiler obviously doesn't know enough to make a sufficiently educated guess. That said, a good compiler _can_ make a good warning. But to do so, you have to actually do value analysis, instead of just blindly warning about code that is obviously correct to a human. Until gcc does sufficient value analysis, that signed warning is annoying, worthless and a damn pain in the ass. 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/