Subject: Re: comparision between signed and unsigned
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Anders Karlsson <anders@trudheim.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1052040732.25950.4.camel@marx>
References: <1052040732.25950.4.camel@marx>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1052064610.1242.14.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 04 May 2003 17:10:11 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 934
Lines: 21

On Sul, 2003-05-04 at 10:32, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> Sitting here watching the compile output from 2.4.21-rc1-ac4 and
> noticing there is a _lot_ of warnings about comparisions between signed
> and unsigned values. The question I have is the following. If all the
> signed values were modified to unsigned to fix the warnings, how likely
> are things to break? Is there any reason to use signed values unless a
> specific reason when negative values are required?

There has been some work done checking entries for errors in 2.4 and
fixing a few real errors. As to others, its mostly gcc being excessively
noisy by default.

If you want to work on them do it on 2.5 though

-
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/