STINNER Victor <[email protected]> added the comment:
The problem can be simplified to this x.c file:
---
static int invalid_day(unsigned int day)
{
return (day < 0 || day > 6);
}
int main()
{
invalid_day(3);
return 0;
}
---
GCC emits the warning:
$ gcc x.c -o x -O3 -Wall -Wextra
x.c: In function 'invalid_day':
x.c:3:17: warning: comparison of unsigned expression in '< 0' is always false
[-Wtype-limits]
3 | return (day < 0 || day > 6);
| ^
There are different options to avoid the warning:
(A) Remove "day < 0" test
Easiest option, portable, simple: my PR 23614.
(B) Disable compiler warnings on the test
Solution currently implemented with pragma + PR 20619 to fix pragmas.
(C) Cast the 'day' variable to a signed type
I understand that Paul wants the code to be as generic as possible, and not
depending on the "day" parameter type. For example, casting to "int8_t" may
introduce a risk of integer overflow if day type is larger than 8 bits. Not my
favorite option.
(D) Make "day < 0" conditional depending if day type is signed or not
(E) Check that day type is unsigned to ensure indirectly that "day >= 0"
Checking if *a type* is signed or not is easy using the C preprocessor:
#define _Py_IS_TYPE_UNSIGNED(type) (((type)-1) > (type)0)
The problem is that there is no standard function to get a variable type. GCC
and clang provide the __typeof__(var) extension, C++ provides decltype(var)
(but CPython code base cannot be built with a C++ compiler if I recall
correctly).
Paul's PR 20624 introduces Py_ASSERT_VAR_UNSIGNED(var) macro which fails during
compilation if the variable is unsigned, or does nothing if the compiler
doesn't provide a way to get a variable type (ex: MSC on Windows).
--
Most answers about "comparison of unsigned expression always false" question on
the Internet are (A): remove the check which emits the warning.
My worry is also that outside _zoneinfo.c, they are tons of functions which
rely on the fact that an unsigned type cannot be negativ. I don't want to start
adding Py_ASSERT_VAR_UNSIGNED(). For me, it's part of the C language and there
is no need to be explicit about it. If a developer changes a variable type,
they have to check the type bounds and check of the variable is used.
I would prefer to be consistent and never check for "< 0" if the type is
unsigned, nor ensure with an assertion that the type is unsigned.
Paul is in disagreement with that.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue40686>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
