Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1230010

Re: [PATCH 00/38] Fixes related to incorrect usage of unsigned types

From Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 00/38] Fixes related to incorrect usage of unsigned types
Date 2015-09-22 11:50 +0200
Message-ID <qbsmZ-1AY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <qb9u2-83M-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qb9DJ-8gq-45@gated-at.bofh.it> <qbrTX-12G-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 09/22/2015 11:13 AM, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 03:42 PM, David Howells wrote:
>> Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Semantic patch finds comparisons of types:
>>>      unsigned < 0
>>>      unsigned >= 0
>>> The former is always false, the latter is always true.
>>> Such comparisons are useless, so theoretically they could be
>>> safely removed, but their presence quite often indicates bugs.
>>
>> Or someone has left them in because they don't matter and there's the
>> possibility that the type being tested might be or become signed under some
>> circumstances.  If the comparison is useless, I'd expect the compiler to just
>> discard it - for such cases your patch is pointless.
>>
>> If I have, for example:
>>
>> 	unsigned x;
>>
>> 	if (x == 0 || x > 27)
>> 		give_a_range_error();
>>
>> I will write this as:
>>
>> 	unsigned x;
>>
>> 	if (x <= 0 || x > 27)
>> 		give_a_range_error();
>>
>> because it that gives a way to handle x being changed to signed at some point
>> in the future for no cost.  In which case, your changing the <= to an ==
>> "because the < part of the case is useless" is arguably wrong.
>
> This is why I have not checked for such cases - I have skipped checks of type
> 	unsigned <= 0
> exactly for the reasons above.
>
> However I have left two other checks as they seems to me more suspicious - they
> are always true or false. But as Dmitry and Andrew pointed out Linus have quite
> strong opinion against removing range checks in such cases as he finds it
> clearer. I think it applies to patches 29-36. I am not sure about patches 26-28,37.

Dropped 30/38 and 31/38 from LED tree then.

-- 
Best Regards,
Jacek Anaszewski
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH 00/38] Fixes related to incorrect usage of unsigned types David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> - 2015-09-21 15:50 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 00/38] Fixes related to incorrect usage of unsigned types Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com> - 2015-09-22 11:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 00/38] Fixes related to incorrect usage of unsigned types Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@samsung.com> - 2015-09-22 11:50 +0200

csiph-web