On 07/18/2014 01:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > i isn't an index in to the syms array at all. This code is completely > wrong. See the patch I sent in reply to Stephen's original email. > > But, to your earlier point, presumably this could warn: > > for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) > if (array[i] > array[5] + 1) > fail(); > > I think that's absurd. There's nothing wrong with that code. A given > test should have to be always true or always false on *all* loop > iterations to be flagged, I think. > No, the issue is that gcc is telling you that the code will do the wrong thing in this case. Yes, only for one iteration, but still. The reason this is a concern is that: (x > x + n) and its variants is often used to mean (x > INT_MAX - n) without the type knowledge, but that is actually invalid standard C because signed types are not guaranteed to wrap. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
