Hi Juan,
Juan Lang wrote:
> The case I objected to is a curious one. I had a look at K&R's type
> promotion rules (2nd edition, section A6.5) and I'm confused what the
> compiler is doing here. The if-block is:
>
> if (pbEncoded[1] + 1 > cbEncoded)
>
> Rewriting the parenthesized expression a
Hi Andy,
> I was curious to see how this one would fly. I fully take your point, of
> course. If it were a good idea, the point would be to reduce the noise when
> looking for real sign-compare problems and without introducing a cast. In a
> similar vein, quite a lot of warnings are generated by c
Juan Lang wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> -if (pbEncoded[1] + 1 > cbEncoded)
> +if (pbEncoded[1] + 1U > cbEncoded)
>
> Is this change necessary? The resulting code is less clear than the
> original, IMO. It's clearly a spurious warning: a BYTE (max value
> 255) + 1 can't yield a value t
Hi Andy,
-if (pbEncoded[1] + 1 > cbEncoded)
+if (pbEncoded[1] + 1U > cbEncoded)
Is this change necessary? The resulting code is less clear than the
original, IMO. It's clearly a spurious warning: a BYTE (max value
255) + 1 can't yield a value that overflows an unsigned int, so
