This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: comparisons..


Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au> writes:

> "Martin v. Loewis" wrote:
> > 
> > > Drat.  I've wasted your time.  Sorry.
> > >
> > > pwold011:/home/morton> gcc -v
> > > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-unknown-linux/2.7.2.3/specs
> > > gcc version 2.7.2.3
> > >
> > > Any chance of a backport? :)
> > 
> > mira% kgcc -v
> > Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.7.2.3/specs
> > gcc version 2.7.2.3
> > mira% kgcc -S -W a.c
> > a.c: In function `y':
> > a.c:5: warning: unsigned value < 0 is always 0
> > 
> > What do you get?
> 
> Enlightenment :)
> 
> The kernel uses -Wall, and this particular warning is not enabled with
> -Wall.
> 
> Unfortunately using `-W' in the kernel makefiles generates a truckload
> of warnings.  Is there a way of unbundling the `if (unsigned < 0)'
> warning with a standalone flag?  Like -Wnegative-unsigned?   It appears
> not.
> 
> The whole reason I brought this up is that someone found an `if
> (unsigned < 0)' bug today.  Made my ears prick up.

RTFM applies here. You'll find a big section on the additional -W options
that'll do what you need.

Will -Wsign-compare or -Wno-sign-compare do the trick ?
 

Nick.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]