On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am wondering if "enum object_type" and signed comparison here > > are compatible. sha1_object_info() is of type "int" so that is > > clearly signed, but are we safe assuming this would not result > > in "type is unsigned and condition is always false"? > > See my recent patch; I actually rewrote those hunks to use OBJ_BAD > rather than < 0, as this cleans things up for my packv4. I'd prefer if < 0 remained though. That way we can use negative values for any kind of error status. And for kernel hackers this is a pretty common idiom. And it uses less line realestate. Actually OBJ_BAD could be assigned the value -1 and OBJ_MAX used to verify the object number is within range. That would unify things and make the code a bit more logical. Nicolas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html