Richard Braun, le Mon 09 Dec 2013 11:28:24 +0100, a écrit : > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 11:07:46AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote: > > On 09.12.2013 11:00:12, Richard Braun wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:20:11AM +0100, Marin Ramesa wrote: > > > > On 08.12.2013 15:25:42, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > > > Marin Ramesa, le Mon 02 Dec 2013 22:54:39 +0100, a écrit : > > > > > > -for ( ; (c != K_DONE) && (char_idx <= max); > > > > > > +for ( ; ((char)c != K_DONE) && (char_idx <= max); > > > > > > > > > > I have rather made K_DONE an unsigned, simply. It definitely has > > > > > to be an unsigned anyway, since it's 0xff... > > > > > > > > There's still a warning from GCC, even after the change. I don't > > > > know why GCC complains about this comparison. Everything looks > > > > good to me now. Here's the warning: > > > > > > > > cc1: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when assuming > > > > that (X - c) <= X is always true [-Wstrict-overflow] > > > > > > Remove your explicit cast, make K_DONE an unsigned. > > > > I have removed it and Samuel made it unsigned and there is still a > > warning. > > Could the warning apply to char_idx and max instead ?
No, it's really commenting c != K_DONE which makes the warning away. My current guess is that c gets implicitly casted to int instead of unsigned int. Samuel
