From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:57:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:57:24 -0400 Received: from relay1.zonnet.nl ([62.58.50.37]:22707 "EHLO relay1.zonnet.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:57:15 -0400 Message-ID: <3B8FC1E7.44B72F2E@linux-m68k.org> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:57:11 +0200 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.8 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ctm@ardi.com CC: Linus Torvalds , Daniel Phillips , David Lang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, ctm@ardi.com wrote: > I don't maintain any linux kernel code, so I'm not lobbying for this > particular solution. I just don't think Linus's example is _good_ > code. I think it's correct, but misleading, code. True, but the only argument I heard from Linus lately is, how bad Wsign-compare is. It's not that difficult to prove that gcc produces false warnings, even if it has the information to know better. That's not the point. What started the discussion is that Linus introduced a new version of min/max macros. I brought up arguments, why I think these macros are unsafe and I got no response to this. I made the mistake of mentioning -Wsign-compare and I get a long explanation instead, how bad it is. In the meantime people are trying to fix bugs without defining them, ignoring the fact that there are already tools, which can help finding real bugs. If the tool is too coarse, use it only from time to time or use a different tool. bye, Roman