[Bug bootstrap/45372] warning coverage.c assigns -1 to unsigned, suggest -1u

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45372

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Warnings during the first stage will not always be correct.


Anyways this has been fixed since r0-108388 which changes the code a lot and
removed the assignment.
So all fixed for GCC 4.7.0.

[Bug bootstrap/45372] warning coverage.c assigns -1 to unsigned, suggest -1u

[schwab at linux-m68k dot org]

--- Comment #2 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org  2010-08-22 08:16 ---
Assigning -1 to an unsigned type is always safe.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45372

[Bug bootstrap/45372] warning coverage.c assigns -1 to unsigned, suggest -1u

[jay dot krell at cornell dot edu]

--- Comment #3 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu  2010-08-22 08:56 
---
Best imho to put in the cast to quash the warning.
To be warning free -- esp. given how close you already are.
Sometimes I think warning-free across a range of compilers is untenable.
But you are in fact already very close.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45372

[Bug bootstrap/45372] warning coverage.c assigns -1 to unsigned, suggest -1u

[jay dot krell at cornell dot edu]

--- Comment #1 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu  2010-08-21 22:13 
---
clarification, where I assert what gives no warning, I was just testing with
like:

-bash-3.00$ cat 1.c
unsigned a = (unsigned)-1;
unsigned b = (0u - 1u);

I didn't yet test changing coverage.c.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45372