On 05/25/11 14:48, Eric Blake wrote: > This patch silences the gcc warning even for gcc too old to honor the > pragma, but I can't help but feel that it might be too gross (it makes > functions like uinttostr larger in size). > ... > - *--p = '-'; > + if (ii) > + *--p = '-';
Yes, it's too gross. Once we start down that path we'll have a big job of making subtle changes to code that make it worse and are put in only to pacify GCC. Compilers should be our servants, not our masters, and in this case GCC serves us better by being quiet about a matter that it doesn't grok. > -#define _GL_INT_SIGNED(e) (_GL_INT_NEGATE_CONVERT (e, 1) < 0) > +#define _GL_INT_SIGNED(e) (_GL_INT_NEGATE_CONVERT (e, 1) <= 0) This change I don't mind so much, as any compiler that can't optimize 0 * e - 1 <= 0 is unlikely to optimize 0 * e - 1 < 0 either. It'd need a comment. If this sort of thing silences all the warnings it might be worth doing.
