Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: > The cases "m = d * C" and "m >= 0" are mostly the same, i.e. with the > same false positives in practice. So, there's no reason to provide a > warning for the second one only.
I don't think the GCC authors are just being dumb here. There probably is a reason; it's just probably buried in the compiler internals. > Andrew Pinski said: "For the first warning, even though the warning is > correct, I don't think we should warn here as the expressions are split > between two different statements.", which is more or less my point here > (the first overflow occurs before the "m >= 0"). Well, I strongly disagree for the reasons I stated in my previous message. *shrug* -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87wqeqfr73....@windlord.stanford.edu
