Message ID | cover-0.3-00000000000-20220111T163908Z-avarab@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Fix SunCC compiler complaints new in v2.35.0-rc0 | expand |
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:40 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote: > > This trivial set of patches fixes compiler complaints from SunCC on > Solaris that are new in v2.35.0-rc0. Thanks, looks fine in principle. For the switch, maybe the block types should be an enum. Is there tooling that would detect a missing case in that case, so we could drop the abort() ? For the 0xffffffff constant, there is probably a better symbolic constant somewhere. Or could we say (1<<64) -1 without causing overflow?
Am 11.01.22 um 18:06 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:40 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This trivial set of patches fixes compiler complaints from SunCC on >> Solaris that are new in v2.35.0-rc0. > > Thanks, looks fine in principle. > > For the switch, maybe the block types should be an enum. Is there > tooling that would detect a missing case in that case, so we could > drop the abort() ? > > For the 0xffffffff constant, there is probably a better symbolic > constant somewhere. Or could we say (1<<64) -1 without causing > overflow? How about -1? Or you could initialize min and max to the actual value of the first item instead of to the absolute limits of the data type. René
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 5:21 PM Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@google.com> wrote: ugh, sorry for the thumbfinger. Please ignore.