Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:48:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@nuxi.nl> Subject: Re: 1 << 31 redux Message-ID: <201801131548.w0DFmW2b045587@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=zRAR6AWgxcjijHPm6mA7BwmaimQ60=75qfUCjepogfg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 11 January 2018 at 07:47, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > > > If we can't get people to fix the warnings we have in the tree now > > (especially the kernel), why enable new warnings that will just be ignored? > > > > We've been doing a reasonable job with warnings until now. Either way, at > higher warnings levels we should add what we can. Is not this 1U<<31 -> signed value really just sweeping the bigger issue that we are using signed values in unsigned ways? -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201801131548.w0DFmW2b045587>