--- Comment #1 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 08:49
---
this seems like a good candidate for using template specialisation to alter the
behaviour
I think the warning is still useful for templates, since it warns you of a
potential mistake in your logic. It doesn't
--- Comment #2 from crossroads at googlemail dot com 2010-05-07 11:22
---
Having to specialize for every unsigned or signed integer types makes no sense,
depends on the standard being used (e.g. if there is a long long type or not),
and whether or not the given implementation has
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 12:09 ---
I didn't suggest specialising on every type, you could specialise on
numeric_limitsinteger::is_signed
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44021
--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 12:20 ---
alternatively you could just use std::lessinteger()(x, 0) which avoids the
warning
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44021
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 13:15 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11856 ***
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
