comparison.
unsigned int x;
int y;
if ((int)x y)
-Rick
-Original message-
From: J Decker d3c...@gmail.com
To: Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Sent: Mon, Sep 27, 2010 05:51:56 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: signed/unsigned comparison warning level
The standards did
On 27/09/2010 07:51, J Decker wrote:
The standards did not leave this open. They define precisely what is
supposed to happen.
Really? I'll have to drop this whole lobbying effort then. That
makes me sad that they didn't define it to be comparing of the numbers
where there are overlaps in
On 27 September 2010 05:19, J Decker d3c...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know why standards left this open, other than there isn't a
single-instruction translation from code to CPU for the comparison;
But if it's not fixed, this warning should definatly be issued at
default warning level. This
Can the severity of signed/unsigned comparisons be raised, since GCC
does not properly handle the comparisons.
Every example below is false compiled with gcc 4.5.0
int main()
{
int s = -2;
unsigned int u = 0xFFFDU;
if( s u )
printf( okay\n );
J Decker d3c...@gmail.com writes:
Can the severity of signed/unsigned comparisons be raised, since GCC
does not properly handle the comparisons.
GCC properly handles the comparisons according to the rules laid down in
the C/C++ language standards.
int main()
{
int s = -2;
The standards did not leave this open. They define precisely what is
supposed to happen.
Really? I'll have to drop this whole lobbying effort then. That
makes me sad that they didn't define it to be comparing of the numbers
where there are overlaps in signed and unsigned instead of causing
