| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f |
| From: | "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be> |
| To: | <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com> |
| Subject: | Re: gcc 3.03 and libc sources |
| Date: | Wed, 26 Dec 2001 19:44:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID: | <000401c18e3d$5c0b2cb0$cef8e0d5@zastaixp> |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| X-Priority: | 3 (Normal) |
| X-MSMail-Priority: | Normal |
| X-Mailer: | Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 |
| X-MimeOLE: | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 |
| In-Reply-To: | <7458-Wed26Dec2001094429+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> |
| Importance: | Normal |
| Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> But what GCC flags in the cases you mentioned is something very > different: there's no comparison between signed and unsigned > values in those cases. What we have is an expression that > sometimes yields signed values and sometimes unsigned values. > What's wrong with that? I think there's a rule in either ANSI C++ or C99 that says that both values in a conditional expression (?:) need to be the exact same type (including signedness). gcc3 enforces this rule by default; so I don't think a gcc bug report is in order (unless it's mistakenly identifying the two types as different, of course). Does this warning happen if you use --std=c89 (or whatever thay option is)?
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |