Re: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war

[Daniel Phillips]

On August 30, 2001 05:28 am, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Yes, in the signed/unsigned case the comparison generated is always
> > unsigned.
> 
> Well... No.
> 
> If you compare a signed integer with a unsigned char, the char gets
> promoted to a _signed_ integer, and the comparison is signed. It is NOT
> a unsigned comparison.

Lets not go into how stupid that is.  Yes, things changed between K&R 
editions 1 and 2, in a misguided attempt to make things less "surprising" the 
drafters just introduced additional confusion.

> And THIS is one example of why it gets complicated.
>
> The C logic for type expansion is just a tad too easy to get wrong, and
> the strict type-checking you normally have with well-written ANSI C simply
> does not exist for integer types. The compiler will silently just do the
> promotion..
> 
> Somebody mentioned -Wsign-compare. Try it with the example above. It won't
> warn at all, exactly because under C both sides of such a compare have the
> _same_ sign, even if one is a "unsigned char", and the other is a "signed
> int".
> 
> Try it yourself if you don't believe me.
> 
> Please guys. The issue of sign in comparisons are a LOT more complicated
> than most of you seem to think.

More than anything, it shows that education is needed, not macro patch-ups.
We have exactly the same issues with < and >, should we introduce 
three-argument macros to replace them?

--
Daniel