On 13/01/07, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 04:08:18AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
so be careful when implementing such warnings.
That warning is already implemented in 4.2 and it is called
Walways-true. You can play with it and fill a bug i
On 13 January 2007 14:00, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13 January 2007 12:55, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>
>>
>> if (func)
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> it'll be bad to warn about
>>
>> if (timerstruct->callbackfunc)
>> {
>> ...
>> timerstruct->callbackfunc (...);
>> ...
>> }
>
On 13 January 2007 12:55, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 04:08:18AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> Much later, the warning was given a name, Walways-true [3], since the
>> warning message said explicitly that something will always be true.
>> However, Andrew Mor
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 04:08:18AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Much later, the warning was given a name, Walways-true [3], since the
> warning message said explicitly that something will always be true.
> However, Andrew Morton didn't want to get a warning just because the
> expression was
The option Walways-true is described as:
Warn about comparisons which are always true such as testing if
unsigned values are greater than or equal to zero. This warning is
enabled by -Wall.
In the description of warnings emitted by -Wextra we can find:
An unsigned value is compared against zero
