From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Derek M Jones Subject: Re: [RFC] explicitly signed and friends Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:51:13 +0100 Message-ID: <468AEF01.2040603@knosof.co.uk> References: <20070702203008.GH21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> <468A6D89.3050800@knosof.co.uk> <20070703230141.GI21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.47]:49059 "EHLO mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751529AbXGDAvc (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2007 20:51:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070703230141.GI21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Al, >>> 4) >>> gcc is kinda-sorta tolerant to mixing pointers to signed and unsigned, >>> unless you explicitly ask to be strict. However, it's nowhere near >>> as lenient as sparse. > >> Having sparse complain about >> constructs that gcc is rather lax about means that those involved in >> kernel development might fix the underlying problem in their code. > > Compare the last two sentences... I was running in Dr Who mode. -- Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:derek@knosof.co.uk Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk