On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Matthias Andree wrote:
>> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't
>> think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning.
>> actually it's always nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody
>> changes the type to int and forgets to
Am 17.10.2011 17:25, schrieb Alexander Best:
> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't think
> comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. actually it's always
> nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody changes the type to int and
> forgets to intr
I'm all for leaving it on because things like char are signed on some
architectures and unsigned on others. This leads to bugs that only appear on
one architecture. This warning will, at least, flag those usages.
On Oct 17, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Alexa
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:56:23AM -0700, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> > any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't
> > think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. actually
> > it's always nice to have such a s
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't
> think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. actually
> it's always nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody changes the
> type to int and forgets to intr
hi there,
any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't think
comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. actually it's always
nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody changes the type to int and
forgets to introduce such a check.
cheers.
alex
_
