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.

In response to

• Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings at 2011-08-03 09:25:31 from Peter Geoghegan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2011-08-03 18:17:33
	Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Previous:	From: David E. Wheeler	Date: 2011-08-03 17:33:03
	Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings