From: "J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>
To: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.4.21-pre4 comparison bugs
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 00:25:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030208232510.GA1841@werewolf.able.es> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030208171838.GA2230@linuxhacker.ru>; from green@linuxhacker.ru on Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 18:18:38 +0100
On 2003.02.08 Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Thanks to whoever mentioned "gcc -W", it's *sweet* ;)
> Looking at it's output I found few cases where error checking
> does not work.
> Though nothing too serious it seems (except maybe IDE setup-pci stuff,
> I just do not know about that, and may be in that case
> we actually want to change all the functions to return signed
> value, though my fix is certainly less intrusive ;) )
> Most of the patched stuff in here assigns signed value to unsigned
> variable and then checks if it is less than zero which does not work
> for obvious reasons ;)
> I decided taht in most cases simple casting to int would be best
> and least intrusive resolution of a problem.
> The only exception is fs/isofs/inode.c, there we have unsigned int
> (so it is unsigned not depending on any arch) and so '> some num'
> stuff will also check for former negative numbers anyway. So
> I removed one extra comparison in that case.
> See the patch below.
>
So:
unsgined f()
{
return -1;
}
if ((int)f()<0)
??
Wouldn't you get killed by some kind of bit/sign extension in the return ?
Just to be sure, probably the answer is just 'go learn C internals'...
--
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon@able.es> \ Software is like sex:
werewolf.able.es \ It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 9.1 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.4.21-pre4-jam1 (gcc 3.2.1 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2.1-5mdk))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-08 23:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-08 17:18 2.4.21-pre4 comparison bugs Oleg Drokin
2003-02-08 23:25 ` J.A. Magallon [this message]
2003-02-17 2:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-02-09 0:58 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-09 17:53 ` 2.4.21-pre4 comparison bugs (More of those) Oleg Drokin
2003-02-09 18:22 ` 2.4.21-pre4 comparison bugs (Even More Again) Oleg Drokin
2003-02-09 21:59 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-09 22:01 ` 2.4.21-pre4 comparison bugs (More of those) Alan Cox
2003-02-10 7:06 ` Oleg Drokin
2003-02-09 16:54 ` 2.4.21-pre4 more extra semicolons bugs Oleg Drokin
2003-02-09 16:59 ` 2.4.21-pre4 - two simple compile fixes Oleg Drokin
2003-02-09 22:02 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030208232510.GA1841@werewolf.able.es \
--to=jamagallon@able.es \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=green@linuxhacker.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox