Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!xanth!mcnc!duke!bet
From: bet@bent (Bennett Todd)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Usual arithmetic conversions
Keywords: sizeof unsigned ouch
Message-ID: <14731@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 89 17:55:06 GMT
References: <308@donk.UUCP> <1702@auspex.auspex.com>
Sender: news@duke.cs.duke.edu
Reply-To: bet@bent (Bennett Todd)
Organization: Diagnostic Physics, Raddiology, DUMC
Lines: 16
In-reply-to: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)

In article <1702@auspex.auspex.com>, guy@auspex (Guy Harris) writes:
>>Don't you just hate it when code that has been working for years
>>suddenly goes bad on you?  This took a few merry hours to find:
>
>"lint" probably would have taken less time to find it; it checks for
>comparisons such as "unsigned >= 0".

I used to use lint meticulously. Then I started using ANSI style C.
Anybody got an ANSI supporting version of lint handy? GCC using -Wall is
better than lint for some kinds of warning messages, but that particular
special case in degenerate booleans isn't among the things it knows to
check for (at least the version I am using, 1.34). Maybe I should bring
up agcpp after all....

-Bennett
bet@orion.mc.duke.edu