On 09/21/2015 03:42 PM, David Howells wrote: > Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Semantic patch finds comparisons of types: >> unsigned < 0 >> unsigned >= 0 >> The former is always false, the latter is always true. >> Such comparisons are useless, so theoretically they could be >> safely removed, but their presence quite often indicates bugs. > > Or someone has left them in because they don't matter and there's the > possibility that the type being tested might be or become signed under some > circumstances. If the comparison is useless, I'd expect the compiler to just > discard it - for such cases your patch is pointless. > > If I have, for example: > > unsigned x; > > if (x == 0 || x > 27) > give_a_range_error(); > > I will write this as: > > unsigned x; > > if (x <= 0 || x > 27) > give_a_range_error(); > > because it that gives a way to handle x being changed to signed at some point > in the future for no cost. In which case, your changing the <= to an == > "because the < part of the case is useless" is arguably wrong. This is why I have not checked for such cases - I have skipped checks of type unsigned <= 0 exactly for the reasons above. However I have left two other checks as they seems to me more suspicious - they are always true or false. But as Dmitry and Andrew pointed out Linus have quite strong opinion against removing range checks in such cases as he finds it clearer. I think it applies to patches 29-36. I am not sure about patches 26-28,37. Regards Andrzej > > David > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in > the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
