On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Hans Wennborg <h...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Hans Wennborg <h...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Roman Lebedev via cfe-commits >>> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Nico Weber <tha...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> Huh, I consider clang not warning on this a feature, not a bug. Why are we >>>>> trying to match what gcc does here? >>>> Because i have been bitten by this more than once. >>>> It did result in big amount of wasted time, and this "thread": >>>> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-August/116390.html >>>> >>>> As with all the clang diagnostics, you can disable them >>>> I personally don't have any opinion on comparisons with >>>> std::numeric_limits<...>::{min,max}() >> >>> To disable the new warning >> Will the https://reviews.llvm.org/D39462 address the reasons for disabling >> it? > > Maybe.. > > One of the first warnings we saw was on code like: > > if (static_cast<uint64_t>(aligned_size) > > std::numeric_limits<size_t>::max()) { /* raise an error */ }
> From the description of your change, it sounds like it wouldn't warn > on this anymore? I believe so. You have explicitly-differently-spelled types on both of the sides. At least that is the idea, as the review shows, the current proposed code needs work... _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits