On 27 September 2010 05:19, J Decker wrote:
>
> I don't know why standards left this open, other than there isn't a
> single-instruction translation from code to CPU for the comparison;
>
> But if it's not fixed, this warning should definatly be issued at
> default warning level. This should be m
On 27/09/2010 07:51, J Decker wrote:
The standards did not leave this open. They define precisely what is
supposed to happen.
Really? I'll have to drop this whole lobbying effort then. That
makes me sad that they didn't define it to be comparing of the numbers
where there are overlaps in si
ed comparison.
>
> unsigned int x;
> int y;
> if ((int)x < y)
>
> -Rick
>
> -Original message-
>
> From: J Decker
> To: Ian Lance Taylor
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Sent: Mon, Sep 27, 2010 05:51:56 GMT+00:00
> Subject: Re: signed/unsigned comparison warning leve
> The standards did not leave this open. They define precisely what is
> supposed to happen.
>
Really? I'll have to drop this whole lobbying effort then. That
makes me sad that they didn't define it to be comparing of the numbers
where there are overlaps in signed and unsigned instead of causin
J Decker writes:
> Can the severity of signed/unsigned comparisons be raised, since GCC
> does not properly handle the comparisons.
GCC properly handles the comparisons according to the rules laid down in
the C/C++ language standards.
> int main()
>
> {
> int s = -2;
> unsigned int
