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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: unsigned / double propagation weirdness?

From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
To: "Robert Dewar" <dewar at gnat dot com>,"Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Cc: "Richard Guenther" <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:52:51 +0100
Subject: Re: unsigned / double propagation weirdness?
References: <403A116B.6080300@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> <D9E4AE53-6617-11D8-BE9E-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu> <403A2EFC.8070304@gnat.com>

Robert Dewar wrote:

> you certainly don't want to regard the use of unary
> minus on unsigned as something you warn about.

What's the rationale for this? I know that other compilers do implement this
warning and I indeed found it useful in the past.

Giovanni Bajo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: unsigned / double propagation weirdness?
  - From: Robert Dewar

References:
- unsigned / double propagation weirdness?
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: unsigned / double propagation weirdness?
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: unsigned / double propagation weirdness?
  - From: Robert Dewar

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