On Sat, 15 Oct 2016, Jeff King wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0200, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> > > I wonder if:
> > > 
> > >   if ((int)command < ARRAY_SIZE(todo_command_strings))
> > > 
> > > silences the warning (I suppose size_t is probably an even better type,
> > > though obviously it does not matter in practice).
> > > 
> > Both do (silence the warning)
> > 
> > enum may be signed or unsigned, right ?
> > So the size_t variant seams to be a better choice
> Good catch. It technically needs to check the lower bound, too. In
> theory, if somebody wanted to add an enum value that is negative, you'd
> use a signed cast and check against both 0 and ARRAY_SIZE(). In
> practice, that is nonsense for this case, and using an unsigned type
> means that any negative values become large, and the check catches them.

I am pretty certain that I disagree with that warning: enums have been
used as equivalents of ints for a long time, and will be, for a long time
to come.

Given that this test is modified to `if (command < TODO_NOOP)` later, I
hope that you agree that it is not worth the trouble to appease that
compiler overreaction?


Reply via email to