Marc Glisse <[email protected]> writes: (For C++, gcc has become much worse than MSVC, its recent optimization-based warnings have false positives all over the place and are almost impossible to work around)
It is some sort of compiler hackerd game, inventing new warnings. These warning naturally become gradually less helpful. I am certainly not against compiler warnings, but of the many hundred that each compiler now comes with, perhaps 10 are useful to me. > I don't think that just adding a cast to avoid an implicit conversion > can be regarded as obfuscating the code. On the contrary, IMHO, > an implicit conversion that may change the value is some kind of > obfuscation. I am not opposed to adding the cast, I was mostly pointing out that the -unsigned issue was well known and the developers declined to make a change in the past. Personally, I see this as endless chase. I am not opposed to working around some false warnings. But any such workaround has a cost as it makes the code readability worse. Also, I expect the only C program which will be accepted once this game is over is the empty file. (Yes, I know a completely empty file is not allowed by the standard. But the program /**/ might work, until somebody invents and enables the -Wuseless-comment warning.) -- Torbjörn Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622 _______________________________________________ gmp-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
