C Sorting Array

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xuftugulus

I use gcc, and had never had any use for that warning. I think it is a fine compiler, with a lot of years of work on it, and an assortment of tools that integrate well with it.
I believe someone with a background of a few years in programming doesn't generally do such errors except if one means to. The only time such warnings would look nice would be usually either on teaching C or while learning C, and i had an embarassing moment with gcc's port mingw32 when i was showing someone implicit conversions and thought it would warn or not even let me build. But silence was surprising at that time.

---

However, silencing some warnings, I think, is not something for a compiler to decide.
It's like saying you want a tool that your work does not have handy. It should be up to us to decide if we want to use the tool or not.
And so in my opinion, GCC has fallen slightly to a lower place due to the lack of implicit narrowing conversion warnings.

Quote:

---

However, silencing some warnings, I think, is not something for a compiler to decide.
It's like saying you want a tool that your work does not have handy. It should be up to us to decide if we want to use the tool or not.

---

As I noted in the post before yours, this is not a case of "silencing some warnings". Rather, it is a case of other compilers doing better by providing extra (and potentially helpful) warnings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C99 Standard Section 6.3.1.3

When a value with integer type is converted to another integer type other than _Bool, if the value can be represented by the new type, it is unchanged.

Otherwise, if the new type is unsigned, the value is converted by repeatedly adding or subtracting one more than the maximum value that can be represented in the new type until the value is in the range of the new type.

Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an implementation-defined signal is raised.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C++ Standard Section 4.7

An rvalue of an integer type can be converted to an rvalue of another integer type. An rvalue of an enumeration type can be converted to an rvalue of an integer type.

If the destination type is unsigned, the resulting value is the least unsigned integer congruent to the source integer (modulo 2n where n is the number of bits used to represent the unsigned type). [Note: In a two's complement representation, this conversion is conceptual and there is no change in the bit pattern (if there is no truncation). ]

If the destination type is signed, the value is unchanged if it can be represented in the destination type (and bit-field width); otherwise, the value is implementation-defined.

If the destination type is bool, see 4.12. If the source type is bool, the value false is converted to zero and the value true is converted to one.

The conversions allowed as integral promotions are excluded from the set of integral conversions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

As I noted in the post before yours, this is not a case of "silencing some warnings". Rather, it is a case of other compilers doing better by providing extra (and potentially helpful) warnings.

---

Well, either way, I find all warnings to be helpful, especially to newbies, so I would think all compilers should support the warning.

Lol, well all compilers should warn if you are down casting(loss of precession) more so, to an extent, than upcasting(more memory use, waisted memory), IMHO, as with this fgetc scenario.

In addition to a good debugger a good profiler tool is usefull as well, helps to make sure you are sticking to the standards or not, but profiler tools can be very verbose. As mentioned such tools are helpful to the begginer. More experienced users of the c language know what switches to add to turn off such trivial warnings.


my 2 pennies