Re: [PATCH] s390 (7/13): gcc 3.3 adaptions.

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 01:02:39PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Does gcc still warn about things like
> 
> 	#define COUNT (sizeof(array)/sizeof(element))
> 
> 	int i;
> 	for (i = 0; i < COUNT; i++)
> 		...
> 
> where COUNT is obviously unsigned (because sizeof is size_t and thus 
> unsigned)?
> 
> Gcc used to complain about things like that, which is a FUCKING DISASTER. 
> 
> Any compiler that complains about the above should be shot in the head, 
> and the warning should be killed.

Maybe...  I suppose it's an implementation issue, because the lack of
signedness issues is probably only noticeable after data value analysis.

Playing devil's advocate here, I actually don't mind it warning for a
scenarion like this, because quite often it indicates an area where, if
s/int/unsigned int/ is performed, the compiler could potentially do a
better job of optimizing.

I agree your above specific example shouldn't trigger a warning
[implementation excuses aside].

	Jeff