On 03/06/2017 10:16 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
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?
sorry to cry wolf :)
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.
silly would be "typeof(PMU_NUM_OF_REGISTERS) i;" :p
I got your point about the complain priority list.
(since we use -fwrapv the compiler can't exploit undefined
behaviour for signed loop indexes either.)
regards,
Phil.
