On Sun Nov 6 11, Ed Schouten wrote:
Hello Alexander!
Even though that I agree that Clang is sometimes a bit picky, we'd
better spend the time fixing the actual bugs in the code. I am more than
willing to commit patches that fix actual warnings/errors in code.
the problem is, something like
On 2011-11-06 21:33, Alexander Best wrote:
...
the problem is, something like
uint x;
if (x 0) ...
clang will warn about this, yet it is 100% valid code so my vote would be to
make such an error into a warning.
Sorry, but checking something unsigned to be smaller than zero is bogus,
On Sun Nov 6 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2011-11-06 21:33, Alexander Best wrote:
...
the problem is, something like
uint x;
if (x 0) ...
clang will warn about this, yet it is 100% valid code so my vote would be to
make such an error into a warning.
Sorry, but checking
On Nov 6, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
On Sun Nov 6 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2011-11-06 21:33, Alexander Best wrote:
...
the problem is, something like
uint x;
if (x 0) ...
clang will warn about this, yet it is 100% valid code so my vote would be to
make such an
On Nov 6, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Alexander Best wrote:
On Sun Nov 6 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 2011-11-06 21:33, Alexander Best wrote:
...
the problem is, something like
uint x;
if (x 0) ...
clang will warn about this, yet it is 100% valid code so my vote would be to
make such an
On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
The only argument against this tautological check that I agree with is when
the code is explicitly trying to be safe. If the developer checks for i 0
when indexing an array he/she is trying to guard against possible pitfalls in
the future when
On Nov 6, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
The only argument against this tautological check that I agree with is when
the code is explicitly trying to be safe. If the developer checks for i
0 when indexing an array he/she is trying to guard
On Nov 6, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
On Nov 6, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Nov 6, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
The only argument against this tautological check that I agree with is when
the code is explicitly trying to be safe. If the developer checks for i
0
