From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Meissner <meissner@cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>
Cc: gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: comparisons..
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:35:00 -0000
Message-id: <20000713023538.08807@cse.cygnus.com>
References: <396D3B72.8A9426EA@uow.edu.au>
X-SW-Source: 2000-07/msg00381.html

On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 03:45:54AM +0000, Andrew Morton wrote:
> unsigned long x;
>  
> int y()
> {
>         return (x < 0);
> }
> 
> This is usually a bug.  Is there a way of getting gcc to warn about it?

The friendly manual says:

`-W'
     Print extra warning messages for these events:

        * A nonvolatile automatic variable might be changed by a call to
          `longjmp'.  These warnings as well are possible only in
          optimizing compilation.

          The compiler sees only the calls to `setjmp'.  It cannot know
          where `longjmp' will be called; in fact, a signal handler
          could call it at any point in the code.  As a result, you may
          get a warning even when there is in fact no problem because
          `longjmp' cannot in fact be called at the place which would
          cause a problem.

        * A function can return either with or without a value.
          (Falling off the end of the function body is considered
          returning without a value.)  For example, this function would
          evoke such a warning:

               foo (a)
               {
                 if (a > 0)
                   return a;
               }

        * An expression-statement or the left-hand side of a comma
          expression contains no side effects.  To suppress the
          warning, cast the unused expression to void.  For example, an
          expression such as `x[i,j]' will cause a warning, but
          `x[(void)i,j]' will not.

        * An unsigned value is compared against zero with `<' or `<='.

        * A comparison like `x<=y<=z' appears; this is equivalent to
          `(x<=y ? 1 : 0) <= z', which is a different interpretation
          from that of ordinary mathematical notation.

        * Storage-class specifiers like `static' are not the first
          things in a declaration.  According to the C Standard, this
          usage is obsolescent.

        * If `-Wall' or `-Wunused' is also specified, warn about unused
          arguments.

        * A comparison between signed and unsigned values could produce
          an incorrect result when the signed value is converted to
          unsigned.  (But don't warn if `-Wno-sign-compare' is also
          specified.)

        * An aggregate has a partly bracketed initializer.  For
          example, the following code would evoke such a warning,
          because braces are missing around the initializer for `x.h':

               struct s { int f, g; };
               struct t { struct s h; int i; };
               struct t x = { 1, 2, 3 };

        * An aggregate has an initializer which does not initialize all
          members.  For example, the following code would cause such a
          warning, because `x.h' would be implicitly initialized to
          zero:

               struct s { int f, g, h; };
               struct s x = { 3, 4 };

--> gcc -W -S foo.c
foo.c: In function `y':
foo.c:5: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false

-- 
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482