g++ problem

Eljay Love-Jensen eljay@adobe.com
Fri Jun 20 13:15:00 GMT 2003

Hi Stefan,

The warning (warning, not error) is occurring because the code is somewhat 

Follow these steps to isolate the ambiguity:

Instead of...
if((( UCHAR )m_pSocket->m_sRxBuffer[0] == TAG ) && (( UCHAR 
)m_pSocket->m_sRxBuffer[1] == XON )) {

...do this...
UCHAR* buffer = m_pSocket->m_sRxBuffer;
UCHAR bufferChar0 = buffer[0];
bool matchTag = (bufferChar0 == TAG);
if(matchTag) {
   UCHAR bufferChar1 = buffer[1];
   bool matchXon = (bufferChar1 == XON);
   if(matchXon) {

NOTE:  don't use any casts.

Reducing the line complexity is a good way to isolate the actual problem.

Removing "big hammer" casts is a good way to find root causes for compiler 
confusion, when casts are involved.  I recommend static_cast<UCHAR>(...) or 
constructor casts instead, if you need to use a cast.  C style casts are 
dangerous, and when needed, should be replaced with 
reinterpret_cast<UCHAR>(...) instead.   The "reinterpret_cast" is 
grep-able, C style casts are not.

The two if statements are to simulate the short-circuit nature of the 
logical AND (&&).

I'd wager that the compiler's optimizer will produce the exact same output 
whether the code is piecemeal as I've described, or 
all-on-one-long-complicated-line as in your original code.

Readability and maintainability are more important in most projects, over 
unnecessary obscurity and obtuseness.  In my opinion.

A beneficial side-effect to the piecemeal approach is that it allows you to 
use gdb to SEE what's going on with the state of the variables.  Whereas 
all-on-one-long-complicated-line prohibits ease of debugging.


More information about the Gcc-help mailing list