Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I noticed Jim fixed a couple obvious
> issues highlighted by the -Wsigned-compare gcc option
> we were talking about a few days ago.
>
> The attached patch silences all other instances,
> so that this option may be used to help find these
> hard to spot er
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't see why gcc is giving this warning, as
> there is no comparison between signed and unsigned here.
> For example in the following program compiled
> with -Wsign-compare why does the second assignment
> give a warning, while the first doesn't?
>
>
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I noticed Jim fixed a couple obvious
> issues highlighted by the -Wsigned-compare gcc option
> we were talking about a few days ago.
>
> The attached patch silences all other instances,
> so that this option may be used to help find these
> hard to spot errors, when they're
this patch is just for comment at this stage.
Also note it is not tested on 64 bit.
thanks,
Pádraig.
>From e22c8a33c74d0d5224f5b542bc366a689c3b4231 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:27:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH
