Your message dated Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:40:40 -0800 with message-id <20190104014040.GA97188@google.com> and subject line Re: gcc: -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness has caused the Debian Bug report #615525, regarding gcc: -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 615525: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=615525 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: gcc: -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:52:13 -0600
- Message-id: <20110227065213.GA23734@elie>
Package: gcc-4.6 Version: 4.6-20110216-1 Severity: wishlist Tags: upstream Hi, $ gcc -c -std=gnu99 -Wtype-limits -x c - <<-\EOF enum test_enum { FOO, BAR }; int valid(enum test_enum arg) { return arg >= FOO && arg <= BAR; } EOF <stdin>: In function ‘valid’: <stdin>:8:9: warning: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtype-limits] $ Since C99 (WG14/N1256 p105, lang.decl.typespec.enum.4) only says: Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or an unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined) but shall be capable of representing the values of all the members of the enumeration. the (arg >= FOO) test is not actually redundant. Thoughts? Jonathan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 615525-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: gcc: -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:40:40 -0800
- Message-id: <20190104014040.GA97188@google.com>
As described at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712, this is working now. Thanks for your patient help. Jonathan
--- End Message ---