From: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 09:38:25 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] parse-options: use and require int pointer for OPT_CMDMODE
Message-ID: <ZRvhEWHWn4nDynD0@ugly>
In-Reply-To: <d9defed8-4e7e-4b84-be3d-57155d973320@web.de>

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 10:49:12AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>Am 21.09.23 um 12:40 schrieb Oswald Buddenhagen:
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:18:10AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
>>> If we base it on type size then we're making assumptions that I
>>> find hard to justify.
>>>
>> the only one i can think of is signedness. i think this can be safely
>> ignored as long as we use only small positive integers.
>
>I don't fully understand the pointer-sign warning, so I'm not
>confident enough to silence it.
>
in theory, differently signed integers may have completely different 
binary representations. but afaik, that only ever mattered for negative 
numbers. and c++20 actually codifies two's complement, which was the 
de-facto standard for decades already.
so in practice it just means that we may be assigning a value that is 
outside the range of the actual type. but small positive values are 
compatible between signed and unsiged types.

regards