Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261171AbTEDQ4S (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 12:56:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261177AbTEDQ4R (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 12:56:17 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:8609 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261171AbTEDQ4Q (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 12:56:16 -0400 Subject: Re: comparision between signed and unsigned From: Alan Cox To: Anders Karlsson Cc: LKML 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 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 04 May 2003 17:10:11 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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/