This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/11490] New: [3.4 regression] Spurious signedness warning with templates
- From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 10 Jul 2003 16:29:35 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/11490] New: [3.4 regression] Spurious signedness warning with templates
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11490
Summary: [3.4 regression] Spurious signedness warning with
templates
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bangerth at dealii dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
For this code
-------------------------
template <int N> bool f() {
unsigned int i=0;
return i!=N;
}
template bool f<2> ();
-------------------------
we did not get warnings in the comparison i!=N, but we do now:
tmp/gg> ../build-gcc/gcc-install/bin/c++ -c x.cc -W
x.cc: In function `bool f()':
x.cc:3: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions
This must have crept in in the last two or three days, since my nightly
builds with -W -Werror succeeded until 2003-07-07. It's not present on
the 3.3 branch.
Now, it's certainly arguable whether this warning is justified, after all
i is unsigned, and N is signed. However, if the warning were postponed
until instantiation time, the exact value of N were known, and in this
case one could check whether N is really negative, or if it is in fact
positive.
I personally would appreciate if this would be handled quickly, since it
hits our code at several 100 places :-(
W.