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

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:

|> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:35:24PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
|> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
|> > 
|> > |> 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. 
|> > 
|> > How can you distinguish that from other occurrences of (int)<(size_t)?
|> 
|> The bounds are obviously constant and unsigned at compile time.

But that's not the point.  It's the runtime value of i that gets converted
(to unsigned), not the compile time value of COUNT.  Thus if i ever gets
negative you have a problem.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."