[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Problem report #8 FALSE

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: Problem report #8 FALSE
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:19:36 +0900

"Jan D." <address@hidden> writes:
>> 4343                   if (actual_format == 32 && actual_format < 
>> 4344                     {
> It can not be < 32 if BITS_PER_LONG is 32, that is true.  But for a 64-bit CPU
> BITS_PER_LONG is 64, so then it becomes relevant.  It is only intended
> to be relevant for the BITS_PER_LONG == 64 case.
> I think gcc optimizes the code away if it finds that
> actual_format < BITS_PER_LONG can never be true.

Then perhaps rewriting the test as:

   if (actual_format == 32 && BITS_PER_LONG > 32)

would get rid of the warning (the checker should treat comparisons of
constants with constants as being uninteresting, as they're almost
always due to cpp macros like this).

It would probably also virtually ensure that gcc optimizes away the
code in the 32-bit BITS_PER_LONG case.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]