On 04/30/2011 01:16 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>>
>> argc is an int, therefore by definition, it is <= INT_MAX.
>>
>> - assert (0 < argc && argc <= INT_MAX);
>> + assert (0 < argc);
>> for (i = 1; i < (unsigned) argc; i++)
>> {
>> const char *arg = ARG((int) i);
>
> Since argc is immediately cast to an unsigned int, I think the test was
> supposed to be:
>
> assert (0 < argc && argc <= UINT_MAX);Except that INT_MAX < UINT_MAX, so that's also redundant. The real trick was that gcc was issuing spurious warnings if it didn't have proof that argc was positive, so all we really needed was the (0 < argc) term; my mistake in the earlier patch was adding a redundant term at the same time. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ M4-patches mailing list M4-patches@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/m4-patches
