Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, it was exactly this patch:
>> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0401.0/1816.html
>
> Hmm. Looks I absolutely disagree with Linus on this one ;-)
Me too. The compiler doesn't really have much choice here. If
it ignores all comparisons of unsigned integers to less than zero
then we could miss real bugs like this:
int foo(unsigned int val)
{
return val < 0;
}
where the user probably wanted a signed comparison.
I suppose it could be smart and stay quiet about
val < 0 || val > BOUND
However, gcc is slow enough as it is without adding unnecessary
smarts like this.
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
