Re: [3/8] kill gen_init_cpio.c printk() of size_t warning

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 09:09:48PM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 
>>Dear Wrongbot,
>>Bullshit.  Signed is promoted to unsigned.
> 
> I'm not sure who you're responding to here, but gcc emitted an actual
> warning and I was only attempting to carry out the minimal effort
> necessary to silence it. I'm not really interested in creating or
> being involved with controversy, just silencing the core build in the
> least invasive and so on way possible, leaving deeper drivers/ issues
> to the resolution of the true underlying problems.
> 
> I don't have anything to do with the code excerpt above; I merely
> followed the style of the other unsigned integer coercions in the file.
> 

I was not responding to you, your stuff is perfectly sane.

The claim from the Wrongbot was that "foo + 1" is bad when foo is a 
size_t.  This is utter bullshit, since that's EXACTLY equivalent to:

	foo + (size_t)1

... because of promotion rules.

	-hpa