danielmarjamaki added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10634#217433, @soumitra wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10634#213835, @zaks.anna wrote: > > > I am leaning toward allowing explicit assignments to "-1", like in this > > case: "unsigned int j = -1". The tool is much more usable if there are few > > false positives. > > > This is exactly what I started off with, albeit with a plain 'char' instead > of 'unsigned int'. We were hitting a runtime issue while porting a large > piece of software to AArch64 since the "signedness" of plain char changes > across x86 and AArch64, and a negative value was used as a initializer. I am also still skeptic about this. Ideally there should only be warnings when there is a mistake. In your example code you showed previously there were portability problems because the signedness changed. A warning for that is ok in my opinion. If the code says 'unsigned int j = -1;' then there is no such portability problem. http://reviews.llvm.org/D10634 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
