Re: Warning for different pointer signedness

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Dec 20, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Paul Schlie wrote:

> > Giovanni Bajo
> > since your patch: 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01284.html
> > has a great impact on existing codebases (linux kernel guys say it 
> > triggers
> > 6.5K times in full build), would you mind adding an entry about this 
> > into
> > changes.html? It would help also to put a rationale there on why such 
> > a change
> > was made, since we will undoubtly get this asked many times.
>
> It would seem that the change was unnecessary, and possibly even 
> incorrect,
> as although the objects they referance are not of the same signedness,
> their pointers (which are the objects being compared) are completely
> compatible, as the storage size and alignment they reference is 
> defined by
> the objects storage class (i.e. char, short, int, long, etc.) which 
> would
> seem to be insensitive to the objects signedness, are equivalent.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, the change only moved a warning from -pedantic
to always on, in fact some compilers reject the code as it is invalid c.

-- Pinski