From owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 17 17:11:38 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713C0106566B
	for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:11:38 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com)
Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538098FC08
	for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:11:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.11.127.239] (unknown [12.228.211.90])
	by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 162583F40F
	for <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
To: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20111017152548.GA66978@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110170955060.2807@gerinyyl.fvgr>
References: <20111017152548.GA66978@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: Re: [toolchain] disable -Wtautological-compare for clang
X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain
	<freebsd-toolchain.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-toolchain-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:11:38 -0000

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
> any chance we could disable -Wtautological-compare for clang? i don't 
> think comparing an unsigned int against < 0 is worth a warning. actually 
> it's always nice to have such a seatbelt, in case somebody changes the 
> type to int and forgets to introduce such a check.

I am on the fence on this one, for when I used the equivalent warning
in GCC this did found a number of real issues that I then addressed for
Wine (as an example).

Gerald