Proof positive the "signedness of char *" warning is useless.
rob at landley.net
Fri Dec 2 15:47:21 UTC 2005
On Thursday 01 December 2005 23:13, John Z. Bohach wrote:
> On Thursday 01 December 2005 15:13, Rob Landley wrote:
> > My complaint was that any legitimate warnings were getting buried in the
> > noise of all the char * warnings.
> > The "signedness of int" warnings are a lot more legitimate, because
> > that's a signedness that was always well defined.
> All such warnings are "legitimate." If a function asks you to pass to it a
> signed parameter, and you pass it an unsigned one, be warned. If its
> intential, cast it, so its obvious that the type mismatch is intentional.
> If its not intentional, fix it to match the prototype.
It does match the prototype. The prototype is "char". The signedness of that
Now it's specifying -funsigned-char. It is now determinate.
> You've taken the position that because nothing is obviously broken by
> sign-mismatched parameters being passed, its okay to do so.
I take the position that gcc has not warned about this for the past 15 years
and it was never previously a problem, and this wouldn't be the first warning
GCC introduced that had 10 times as much noise as signal.
> It is not
> okay, even though most of the time you can get away with it, and most of
> the time compilers don't warn about it.
You are welcome to think anything you want, and I am welcome to put you in my
spam filter as I would anything _else_ that produces 10x as much noise as it
> Now, the current situation is that gcc has reached a level of maturity (or
> the gcc developers had nothing better to do) that allows it to warn about
> sign mismatches. I applaude that.
Did I disable the warning? Or did I define the sign of char?
> Yes, C is a weakly-typed language, else
> such mismatches would cause compile-time errors and your code wouldn't even
If gcc broke the build due to something like this, I would consider it broken
and simply wouldn't support it until they fixed it.
> I admit to being a purist, but damn it, computing requires, nay,
> demands, perfection.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
You are now in my spam filter.
Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
More information about the busybox