Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Date
Msg-id 1312395337.24208.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
List 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.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings