From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 13 11:31:55 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC2B37B401 for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C26F43FAF for ; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6DIVpv1085299; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6DIVpE8078088; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6DIVpTZ078087; Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: David Leimbach Message-ID: <20030713183151.GA78045@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030712155333.GA79322@crodrigues.org> <20030713031312.GA89014@crodrigues.org> <20030713000559.28c18be6.kabaev@mail.ru> <401FAE5E-B535-11D7-BE3B-0003937E39E0@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <401FAE5E-B535-11D7-BE3B-0003937E39E0@mac.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: Craig Rodrigues cc: Alexander Kabaev cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.3.1, new warnings with X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:31:56 -0000 On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 08:23:54AM -0500, David Leimbach wrote: > > This is a good policy in general, however, one could easily argue that > what > is trying to be determined with signedness and such being > less-than-compared > to 0 isn't really a big deal and possibly the only way to implement this > numeric_limits::digits thing without any type introspection which > C++ currently > lacks. What about? #define issigned(T) (((T)(0)>(T)(~0)) ? 1 : 0) -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net