ando@OpenLDAP.org writes:
config.c 1.506 -> 1.507 silence signedness warnings
} else if ( rc == ARG_BAD_CONF ) {
} else if ( (unsigned long)rc == ARG_BAD_CONF ) {That breaks working code. Never shut up signedness warnings without working through what the expressions do, it's too easy to go wrong.
rc is an int. ARG_BAD_CONF = 0xdead0000: an unsigned int if int is 32-bit. Consider 32-bit int, 64-bit long, with rc == (int)ARG_BAD_CONF: rc < 0 so (unsigned long)rc sign-extends to 0xffffffffdead0000, but ARG_BAD_CONF itself is positive so it is not sign-extended.
My PC is 32-bit, so int is 32-bit. If I do
int rc = 0xdead0000;
(0xdead0000 == (unsigned long)rc) is true. Am I doing anything wrong?
The old code worked as far as I can tell: It converted rc to unsigned int, yielding the original ARG_BAD_CONF.
The same functinality change happens with the other changes below that one, I haven't looked at whether that is a fix of broken code or if it breaks working code. (Or it is breaks broken code in a new way:-)
The other changes should eb just fine, since the values of the signed variables are expected to be non-negative, and this test is done without casting.
p.