From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14818 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2008 13:36:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 13063 invoked by uid 48); 1 Dec 2008 13:35:13 -0000 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20081201133513.13062.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/38341] Wrong warning comparison of promoted ~unsigned with unsigned In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg00047.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from fredrik dot hederstierna at securitas-direct dot com 2008-12-01 13:35 ------- On Intel i386-GCC (4.2.3) we just get warning only for the line if (c1 == ~c2) The other lines does not give warnings, so maybe its just the ARM-backend that catch this warning. I guess you mean that for ARM target the optimization tree does things that silence the warning. Is it good that optimizations can silence possible warnings/errors? And that it differs depending on which backend I'm running? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38341