On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I'm trying to modularize a couple of drivers, and one of them is
generating some gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned
values.
The driver module is currently being compiled with WARNS=4 (just picked
that up from another Makefile). Is th
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 03:11:27AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> [...] gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned values.
> >>> It is best to fix the errors.
> >> In my experience, that warning produces so many more false positives
> >> than useful warnings that I normally shut it off ent
>> It is not necessarily an error to compare signed and unsigned
>> values. [...]
> And it is not an error to put assignments in conditionals, or not
> place parentheses to clarify operator precedence, etc. It is a
> warning [...]. For some of us this is helpful. The compiler writers
> try to h
[...] gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned values.
>>> It is best to fix the errors.
>> In my experience, that warning produces so many more false positives
>> than useful warnings that I normally shut it off entirely.
> and that one time that using it might have warned you abou
In article <201108230521.baa12...@sparkle.rodents-montreal.org>,
Mouse wrote:
>>> [...] gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned values.
>
>> It is best to fix the errors.
>
>What errors?
>
>It is not necessarily an error to compare signed and unsigned values.
>In my experience, that w
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Mouse wrote:
> >> [...] gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned values.
>
> > It is best to fix the errors.
>
> What errors?
>
> It is not necessarily an error to compare signed and unsigned values.
> In my experience, that warning produces so many more false posit
>> [...] gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned values.
> It is best to fix the errors.
What errors?
It is not necessarily an error to compare signed and unsigned values.
In my experience, that warning produces so many more false positives
than useful warnings that I normally shut i
In article ,
Paul Goyette wrote:
>I'm trying to modularize a couple of drivers, and one of them is
>generating some gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned
>values.
>
>The driver module is currently being compiled with WARNS=4 (just picked
>that up from another Makefile). Is there
I'm trying to modularize a couple of drivers, and one of them is
generating some gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned
values.
The driver module is currently being compiled with WARNS=4 (just picked
that up from another Makefile). Is there a more appropriate WARNS=n to
use to p
