This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR c/51712 -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > What if the comparison is
> >
> > ?(unsigned) (expr_of_signed_enum_type) >= 0
> >
> > ? ?(With GCC, the enum will have a signed type if one of its values is
> > negative.) ?That seems worth a warning - the point of the patch as I
> > understand it is to avoid warning for
>
> What I understood from the PR is that we should never warn for enums.
I think the point is we shouldn't warn if the enum itself if part of the
comparison - as opposed to the enum cast to some type whose signedness is
not implementation-defined. But at present it may be difficult to tell if
there was an explicit cast of an unsigned enum to unsigned - but we can
still detect the above case.
> +/* Given an expression as a tree, return its original type. Do this
> + by stripping any conversion that generates no instruction but don't
> + let the signedness change. */
"generates no instruction" is not appropriate semantics for something
related to diagnostics. "any conversion that preserves the sign and
precision"? OK with that version.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com