X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:05:12 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2427-Sat02Mar2002210512+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200203021641.RAA04749@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:41:05 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: gcc 3.03 and libc sources
References:  <200203021641 DOT RAA04749 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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
Precedence: bulk

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:41:05 +0100 (MET)
> 
>    if (!check_talloc(found_si ?
> -                   type->stubinfo->struct_length : 0
> +                   (unsigned int)(type->stubinfo->struct_length) : 0
>                     + (argc+1)*sizeof(short)))
>    {
>      argv[0] = save_argv0;

What is the problem here, exactly?  Does GCC handle zero as an
unsigned constant or something?

> Now that I've thought about it, I think it makes sense that both types
> on each side of ":" must be the same. As this is part of an expression,
> one of them must be converted to the other's type for the evaluation
> of the whole expression. So the warning is justified.

I still think it's a bug.  The normal C promotion rules for integral
types should take care of the different types.