«

I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why? isn't it an overflow?

char c = 0xff;

Hill Pang wrote:

> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why?
> isn't it an overflow?
>
> char c = 0xff;

1) consider the gcc options -fsigned-char and -funsigned-char
and ask yourself: "is char a signed or unsigned type?"

2) consider the gcc option -Wstrict-overflow=n
(-Wall enables -Wstrict-overflow=1)
Note however that "overflow" only makes sense in the context
of signed arithmetic, since the language properly defines the
"wrap-around" semantics for unsigned arithmetic.

On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 6:04:09 PM UTC+8, Noob wrote:
> Hill Pang wrote:
>
> > I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why?
> > isn't it an overflow?
> >
> > char c = 0xff;
>
> 1) consider the gcc options -fsigned-char and -funsigned-char
> and ask yourself: "is char a signed or unsigned type?"
>
> 2) consider the gcc option -Wstrict-overflow=n
> (-Wall enables -Wstrict-overflow=1)
> Note however that "overflow" only makes sense in the context
> of signed arithmetic, since the language properly defines the
> "wrap-around" semantics for unsigned arithmetic.

1) I am running the GCC on X86, I am sure by default the char should be signed, and even I add the option -fsigned-char, the result is same.
2) I tried -Wall and -Wstrict-overflow=1, no luck to get the warning.

On 06/06/2012 06:17 AM, Hill Pang wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 6:04:09 PM UTC+8, Noob wrote:
>> Hill Pang wrote:
>>
>>> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why?
>>> isn't it an overflow?
>>>
>>> char c = 0xff;
>>
>> 1) consider the gcc options -fsigned-char and -funsigned-char
>> and ask yourself: "is char a signed or unsigned type?"
>>
>> 2) consider the gcc option -Wstrict-overflow=n
>> (-Wall enables -Wstrict-overflow=1)
>> Note however that "overflow" only makes sense in the context
>> of signed arithmetic, since the language properly defines the
>> "wrap-around" semantics for unsigned arithmetic.
>
> 1) I am running the GCC on X86, I am sure by default the char should be signed, and even I add the option -fsigned-char, the result is same.
> 2) I tried -Wall and -Wstrict-overflow=1, no luck to get the warning.

You need the -pedantic option:

gcc -pedantic -c overchar.c
overchar.c:1: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion
--
James Kuyper

James Kuyper wrote:

> You need the -pedantic option:
>
> gcc -pedantic -c overchar.c
> overchar.c:1: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion

Alternatively, one may consider -Wsign-conversion:
> Warn for implicit conversions that may change the sign of an integer
> value, like assigning a signed integer expression to an unsigned
> integer variable. An explicit cast silences the warning.

Or rather -Wconversion in this specific scenario:
> Warn for implicit conversions that may alter a value. This includes
> conversions between real and integer, like abs (x) when x is double;
> conversions between signed and unsigned, like unsigned ui = -1; and
> conversions to smaller types, like sqrtf (M_PI). Do not warn for
> explicit casts like abs ((int) x) and ui = (unsigned) -1, or if the
> value is not changed by the conversion like in abs (2.0). Warnings
> about conversions between signed and unsigned integers can be
> disabled by using -Wno-sign-conversion.

$ gcc -Wconversion -c warn.c
warn.c: In function 'foo':
warn.c:3:3: warning: conversion to 'char' alters 'int' constant value

On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 5:42:13 PM UTC+8, Hill Pang wrote:
> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why? isn't it an overflow?
>
> char c = 0xff;

Thanks, every one!

Yes, with additional options, the warning shows, but for me I think it is straight to check if a const is in the represent-able range of a variable inan assignment, I think the warning should be popped up by default rather by an extra option. I am wondering if there is some special rulers behind this, is there any such ruler listed in the C standard or some place anywhere?

China Blue Max <> writes:

> In article <6d2a019d-fea9-406d-9cda->,
> Hill Pang <> wrote:
>
>> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why?
>> isn't it an overflow?
>>
>> char c = 0xff;
>
> Either char is implicitly unsigned or it used the conversion
> unsigned->signed of the same size. Unless explicitly marked, the
> implementation decides whether chars are signed; one of the default
> conversions is unsigned to signed of the same size.

Unless I've missed what you mean by "default conversions" that's a
little confusing simply by being overly specific. C specifies implicit
conversions between unsigned and signed types of all sizes. Some are
defined entirely by the standard, and others are left up to the
implementation, but there is nothing special about conversion between
signed and unsigned integer types of the same size.

--
Ben.

On 06/06/2012 07:35 AM, Hill Pang wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 5:42:13 PM UTC+8, Hill Pang wrote:
>> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why? isn't it an overflow?
>>
>> char c = 0xff;
>
> Thanks, every one!
>
> Yes, with additional options, the warning shows, but for me I think it is straight to check if a const is in the represent-able range of a variable in an assignment, I think the warning should be popped up by default rather by an extra option. I am wondering if there is some special rulers behind this, is there any such ruler listed in the C standard or some place anywhere?

The C standard mandates certain diagnostics. gcc does not provide all of
the mandated diagnostics for any version of the C standard (and is
therefore not a conforming implementation of C) without either the -ansi
or the -std= options, plus -pedantic. There's LOTS of additional useful
warnings not mandated by the C standard, and you need to explicitly
request them; -Wall gets most of the most useful ones. I like to add
-Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
) China Blue Max <> writes:
)
)> In article <6d2a019d-fea9-406d-9cda->,
)> Hill Pang <> wrote:
)>
)>> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why?
)>> isn't it an overflow?
)>>
)>> char c = 0xff;
)>
)> Either char is implicitly unsigned or it used the conversion
)> unsigned->signed of the same size. Unless explicitly marked, the
)> implementation decides whether chars are signed; one of the default
)> conversions is unsigned to signed of the same size.
)
) Unless I've missed what you mean by "default conversions" that's a
) little confusing simply by being overly specific. C specifies implicit
) conversions between unsigned and signed types of all sizes. Some are
) defined entirely by the standard, and others are left up to the
) implementation, but there is nothing special about conversion between
) signed and unsigned integer types of the same size.

Since when is the literal 0xff an unsigned type?
As far as I can tell, it should be a signed integer, no?


SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

Hill Pang wrote:
> I was expecting a warning for this assignment, but can't get from GCC, why? isn't it an overflow?
>
> char c = 0xff;

You're basically setting c to -127, which is no legal offense :-p
You'll get into trouble if you try to _compare_ this value
to something else....

-rasp


--
See why I hate Windows users?
All pain, no gain.
-Howard Chu