Re: small patch to suppress a warning
Stephan Pleines writes: > So what is the verdict in this patch please? Adding the pair of parentheses makes the code slightly more readable to me. But it would still be nice if you could say what the warninsg message to be suppressed is, and which compiler and version produces that warning. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid 368C6677. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
Re: small patch to suppress a warning
So what is the verdict in this patch please? On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:06 AM Hans Åberg wrote: > > > On 11 Feb 2021, at 11:45, Torbjörn Granlund wrote: > > > > I think there might be better places to discuss compiler warnings than > > the gmp-bugs list. > > > > I think most of us agree that compiler warnings for valid C code are > > sometimes useful. For example, valid warnings about unitialised > > variables seem pretty uncontroversial. > > Actually not, on Bison. > > > ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
Re: small patch to suppress a warning
I think there might be better places to discuss compiler warnings than the gmp-bugs list. I think most of us agree that compiler warnings for valid C code are sometimes useful. For example, valid warnings about unitialised variables seem pretty uncontroversial. But please continue the discussion on clang's warning chattiness elsewhere... -- Torbjörn Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622 ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
Re: small patch to suppress a warning
> On 10 Feb 2021, at 23:55, Stephan Pleines wrote: > > Can you please elaborate why it is a compiler bug? It is a legal C feature, so there should not be issued a warning. ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
Re: small patch to suppress a warning
Can you please elaborate why it is a compiler bug? On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 2:00 PM Hans Åberg wrote: > You do not say which compiler it is, but it looks like a clang bug. > > > > On 10 Feb 2021, at 17:26, Stephan Pleines > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This is a tiny patch to suppress a warning about operator precedence. > > > > Thank you, > > Stephan > > > > diff -r 925753a1f950 mpz/pprime_p.c > > --- a/mpz/pprime_p.cMon Dec 21 00:48:03 2020 +0100 > > +++ b/mpz/pprime_p.cWed Feb 10 08:21:36 2021 -0800 > > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ > > int is_prime; > > unsigned long n0; > > n0 = mpz_get_ui (n); > > - is_prime = n0 & (n0 > 1) ? isprime (n0) : n0 == 2; > > + is_prime = (n0 & (n0 > 1)) ? isprime (n0) : n0 == 2; > > return is_prime ? 2 : 0; > >} > > /* Negative number. Negate and fall out. */ > > ___ > > gmp-bugs mailing list > > gmp-bugs@gmplib.org > > https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs > > ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
Re: small patch to suppress a warning
You do not say which compiler it is, but it looks like a clang bug. > On 10 Feb 2021, at 17:26, Stephan Pleines wrote: > > Hi, > > This is a tiny patch to suppress a warning about operator precedence. > > Thank you, > Stephan > > diff -r 925753a1f950 mpz/pprime_p.c > --- a/mpz/pprime_p.cMon Dec 21 00:48:03 2020 +0100 > +++ b/mpz/pprime_p.cWed Feb 10 08:21:36 2021 -0800 > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ > int is_prime; > unsigned long n0; > n0 = mpz_get_ui (n); > - is_prime = n0 & (n0 > 1) ? isprime (n0) : n0 == 2; > + is_prime = (n0 & (n0 > 1)) ? isprime (n0) : n0 == 2; > return is_prime ? 2 : 0; >} > /* Negative number. Negate and fall out. */ > ___ > gmp-bugs mailing list > gmp-bugs@gmplib.org > https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs ___ gmp-bugs mailing list gmp-bugs@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-bugs
