On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:16:27PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03:29AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > gcc seems to get uber-anal recently about these things. > > > > Sorry, I should have said that it's not a gcc warning, it's a > smatch thing. But also it's not uber-anal. It's the exact level of > anality which is required to make the == -1 test work. You can > compare unsigned int and longs to -1 and it works but for smaller > types it doesn't. I've picked this one here up for -next, thanks for your clarification (added to the commit message in). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel at ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
