On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:44:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:00 AM, John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
>> There's also a warning that triggers with clang 3.2 but not clang trunk, 
>> which
>> I think is a legitimate warning - perhaps someone who understands integer 
>> type
>> promotion better than me can explain why the code is OK (patch->score is
>> declared as 'int'):
>> builtin/apply.c:1044:47: warning: comparison of constant 18446744073709551615
>>     with expression of type 'int' is always false
>>     [-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
>>         if ((patch->score = strtoul(line, NULL, 10)) == ULONG_MAX)
>>             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^  ~~~~~~~~~
> The warning seems to be very very wrong, and implies that clang has
> some nasty bug in it.
> Since patch->score is 'int', and UNLONG_MAX is 'unsigned long', the
> conversion rules for the comparison is that the int result from the
> assignment is cast to unsigned long. And if you cast (int)-1 to
> unsigned long, you *do* get ULONG_MAX. That's true regardless of
> whether "long" has the same number of bits as "int" or is bigger. The
> implicit cast will be done as a sign-extension (unsigned long is not
> signed, but the source type of 'int' *is* signed, and that is what
> determines the sign extension on casting).
> So the "is always false" is pure and utter crap. clang is wrong, and
> it is wrong in a way that implies that it actually generates incorrect
> code. It may well be worth making a clang bug report about this.

The warning doesn't occur with a build from their trunk so it looks like
it's already fixed - it just won't make into into a release for about 5
months going by their timeline.

Thanks for the clear explanation.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to