On 01/08/2016 06:21 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The point of this warning is that there are certain cases of incompatible
types that are less serious than others - namely, those where the only
aspect of the type that is different is its signedness. Those get a more
specific warning, which is given u
The point of this warning is that there are certain cases of incompatible
types that are less serious than others - namely, those where the only
aspect of the type that is different is its signedness. Those get a more
specific warning, which is given under more restrictive conditions.
I see. I
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > Signedness of char (and of bit-fields) is a tristate, "signed", "unsigned"
> > and "". My claim is that a difference between any two of those three
> > values is essentially the same kind of difference. And so at most the
> > wording should be adjusted
Signedness of char (and of bit-fields) is a tristate, "signed", "unsigned"
and "". My claim is that a difference between any two of those three
values is essentially the same kind of difference. And so at most the
wording should be adjusted (or maybe an inform ("% and % are different types" adde
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > I don't think it's desirable to raise the warning for this case under
> > different conditions from the warning for other signedness cases. The
> > targets do differ in signedness - it's just that the difference is between
> > "plain" and "signed" or "p
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 06:54:32PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/07/2016 10:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> >I don't think it's desirable to raise the warning for this case under
> >different conditions from the warning for other signedness cases. The
> >targets do differ in signedness - it'
On 01/07/2016 10:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
I don't think it's desirable to raise the warning for this case under
different conditions from the warning for other signedness cases. The
targets do differ in signedness - it's just that the difference is between
"plain" and "signed" or "plain" and
On 01/07/2016 02:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
This PR points out that we issue a wrong warning message when assigning
two pointers when one of them is plain char. In that case, the compiler
currently says that pointer targets differ in signedness. But th
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This PR points out that we issue a wrong warning message when assigning
> two pointers when one of them is plain char. In that case, the compiler
> currently says that pointer targets differ in signedness. But that is
> not correct; char is a separate t
This PR points out that we issue a wrong warning message when assigning
two pointers when one of them is plain char. In that case, the compiler
currently says that pointer targets differ in signedness. But that is
not correct; char is a separate type from (un)signed char and is not
compatible wit
10 matches
Mail list logo
