On 6 March 2017 at 13:03, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 06/03/2017 10:46, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 6 March 2017 at 04:06, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> wrote: >>> your change seems OK but while you are here, 'unsigned' is considered >>> harmful since more than a decade. >> >> Considered harmful by who, and why? > > It is true that unsigned has all the disadvantages of "int" (it may be > smaller than the size of the object" and all the disadvantages of > "size_t" (it doesn't optimize as well because the compiler cannot > exploit undefined behavior). > > I wouldn't call it harmful, but it feels like the worst of both worlds.
size_t is a pretty silly choice for a variable that's looping through the number of registers in the device, which is a value that would fit in 16 bits, let alone 32. I would probably have written this with 'int', but use of 'unsigned' doesn't come very high up on my list of things to complain about. (since we use -fwrapv the compiler can't exploit undefined behaviour for signed loop indexes either.) thanks -- PMM
