SUMMARY GCC reports tskip_digitshe following warnings in none/tests/s390x/disasm-test/opcode.c: opcode.c: In function ‘parse_int’: opcode.c:1411:27: warning: ordered comparison of pointer with integer zero [-Wextra] 1411 | if (is_unsigned && val < 0) { | ^ opcode.c:1415:27: warning: ordered comparison of pointer with integer zero [-Wextra] 1415 | return skip_digits(val < 0 ? p + 1 : p); | ^ Looking at the code, it does seem like *val should be used instead. SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS Commit 64beb80 compiled on Arch Linux
Sorry, I accidentally middle-clicked before submitting. The "GCC reports tskip_digitshe" text should say "GCC reports the". And the arrows in the compiler warnings should point to the < signs.
Good catch! Thanks for the report. We don't compile with -Wextra (except in a few testsuite buckets). But maybe we should consider it. I'll take a look later today.
Fixed in 685affd00645ea5d4492897d372e457bfc8cf838. As for -Wextra.... the fallout is: 2948 warnings 521 -Wsign-compare 1613 -Wunused-parameter 44 -Wtype-limits 747 -Wmissing-field-initializers 17 -Wcast-function-type 4 -Wclobbered 2 -Wextra (as reported) I sampled a few and none of those I'd want to fix. Might be worthwhile, though, to make a run with -Wextra as part of release festivities.