https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80793
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
>
> There are several issues conflated here.
>
> > t.c: In function ‘f’:
> > t.c:3:46: warning: signed and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80793
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80793
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80793
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80793
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The warnings aren't incorrect, there are just too many of them for what boils
down to essentially the same problem. It's true that the operands of the
conditional expression have mixed signedness. It's also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80793
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I think GCC is correct in warning about all three.
There are all different issues really with the single statement.
The first warning is most accurate warning for all 4 warnings that are produced
(that
