Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On 2 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
I didn't intend for it to be reviewed; I just asked if this was
the kind of thing that was asked for. Writing a good patch for
this was far more work (esp. writing a testcase that covers
all cases). I have one in the works but as there was not
much interest I dropped it on the floor. If anyone still wants
it, better speak up.
[0] This is very bad procedure; ignoring patches rather than explaining
what is wrong is far too likely to lose potential contributors. It is,
Agreed.
however, what happens; patches not following the standards are more
tedious to review than ones following the standards, and even many good
patches following the standards get ignored. However, this patch was not
ignored; it received several comments on what ought to be done.
True. But no consensus was reached on whether this was a good idea
at all. As this is mostly tedious, non-fun work and I don't get
paid a dime to do it, and no-one cheered me on, it wasn't a priority
work for me (and I forgot about it, really).
I expect a patch that followed the GNU and GCC coding standards, including
thorough testcases, and implemented the simple specification I gave for
-Wconversion (warn for any implicit conversion that may change a value),
would get reviewed.
I'd like to hear whether this change to the semantics of -Wconversion
is likely to be accepted, first.
Cheers,
Segher
