On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Marek Polacek wrote:

> Hmm, how about this, then?
> "operand of ?: changes signedness from %qT to %qT due to unsignedness of 
> other operand"
> I couldn't come up with anything more brief yet conveying all the information.
> I don't like adding "second"/"third"/... very much; we should offer a good
> location already.
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?


Joseph S. Myers

Reply via email to