On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote:- > > > > On Feb 25, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > > > (clang unfortunately has to be > > > extremely loose about pointer conversions in general.) > > > > > > I think we can tighten this up in C++ mode, right? > > Shouldn't we warn even for C without -pedantic? I know I as > a user would like that.
Yeah, we probably should... gcc warns, so it shouldn't be an issue. We should be careful not to warn by default about implicit signed/unsigned conversion, though; people are likely to get annoyed at a compiler warning that they're passing an int16_t* to a function expecting a uint16_t*. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
