From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |
Date: | 2011-08-03 18:15:37 |
Message-ID: | 1312395337.24208.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On ons, 2011-08-03 at 10:25 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached patch removes the tautologolical part of an evaluated
> expression, fixing the problem flagged by this quite valid warning.
I think these warnings are completely bogus and should not be worked
around. Even in the most trivial case of
{
unsigned int foo;
...
if (foo < 0 && ...)
...
}
I would not want to remove the check, because as the code gets moved
around, refactored, reused, whatever, the unsigned int might change into
a signed int, and then you're hosed. It's fine for -Wextra, but not for
the -Wall level.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-08-03 18:17:33 | Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-08-03 17:33:03 | Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings |