Why is perl_RnW1_mutex_t.readers_count unsigned?

We have a relatively new struct in perl.h that looks like this:

typedef struct {
  perl_mutex lock;
  perl_cond wakeup;
  Size_t readers_count;
} perl_RnW1_mutex_t;

Meanwhile, over in thread.h, we have a number of macros that do things
like the following to make sure the unsigned readers_count does not go
negative:

            if ((mutex)->readers_count <= 0) {                      \
                assert((mutex)->readers_count == 0);                \
                (mutex)->readers_count = 0;                         \
                break;                                              \
            }                                                       \

That seems pretty pointless to me since an unsigned value can't go
negative. Should we make readers_count SSize_t rather than Size_t, or
should we get rid of the check for negative values?

I ask because the compiler I'm using complains as follows in a couple
dozen places.

    GETENV_UNLOCK;
...^
%CC-I-QUESTCOMPARE, In this statement, the unsigned expression
"(&PL_env_mutex)->readers_count" is being compared with a relational
operator to a constant whose value is not greater than zero.  This
might not be what you intended.
at line number 2802 in file SMOKE_BUILD_ROOT:[blead]inline.h;1

This recently broke the build until I relaxed Time::HiRes's
configuration code and still causes at least one test failure
(porting/extrefs.t).  If the intent was to limit the number of readers
on a mutex, there must be some more reasonable way to specify the
range than depending on integer wraparound to let us know there are
too many. I think we would run into resource exhaustion long before
getting anywhere near INT_MAX readers.

• Why is perl_RnW1_mutex_t.readers_count unsigned? by Craig A. Berry
• Re: Why is perl_RnW1_mutex_t.readers_count unsigned? by Karl Williamson
• Re: Why is perl_RnW1_mutex_t.readers_count unsigned? by Craig A. Berry