From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263573AbTEDJTw (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 05:19:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263574AbTEDJTw (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 05:19:52 -0400 Received: from dsl-62-3-122-162.zen.co.uk ([62.3.122.162]:7580 "EHLO marx.trudheim.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263573AbTEDJTv (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 May 2003 05:19:51 -0400 Subject: comparision between signed and unsigned From: Anders Karlsson To: LKML Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QEBvGToj6addAT9UXmKC" Organization: Trudheim Technology Limited Message-Id: <1052040732.25950.4.camel@marx> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4Rubber Turnip Date: 04 May 2003 10:32:13 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-QEBvGToj6addAT9UXmKC Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi list, Sitting here watching the compile output from 2.4.21-rc1-ac4 and noticing there is a _lot_ of warnings about comparisions between signed and unsigned values. The question I have is the following. If all the signed values were modified to unsigned to fix the warnings, how likely are things to break? Is there any reason to use signed values unless a specific reason when negative values are required? /Anders --=-QEBvGToj6addAT9UXmKC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+tN4cLYywqksgYBoRAvvNAKCMdnOLllZjIjJu3ri15aSxKv/+ewCbBdUX RDx23WDufVV1iuWY4mhS7sQ= =X65q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-QEBvGToj6addAT9UXmKC--