From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30780 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2005 17:36:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30743 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jan 2005 17:36:32 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050115173632.30741.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "schlie at comcast dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050115123233.19457.reichelt@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050115123233.19457.reichelt@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19457] [4.0 Regression] Warning depends on cached constant X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg02018.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 17:36 ------- (In reply to comment #0) Lasly, (sorry for not collecting all thoughts first), suspect the problem may be that ~ is being considered as being analogous to an arithmetic -, which it shoudn't be; therefore ~(any constant value >= 0) should be compatible with either signed or unsiged. although -(any constant value >= 0) should be compatible with only signed witout a cast. (as ~ is a bit-wise operation, not a arithmetic one, otherwise one couldn't even specify: (unsigned)x = (unsigned)x & 0x3; without a cast, likely generating tons of useless warnings) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19457