------- Comment #14 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-20 19:13 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> I am also interested in seeing if there are any (large signed) -> (small
> unsigned) and bring them to the discussion, where all positive values fit in
> the unsigned (so no warning) or there is a sign conversion.
Interesting. I don't think there are, but I will double check and let you know.
> About the (negative constant) -> unsigned type, I meticulously explained
> everything I wanted to said in my long email (the warning has been there
> forever, it was the only documented thing that Wconversion did until recently,
> it was the reason for splitting Wconversion, etc). So, I won't go there again,
> please, I would like to hear Joseph Myers's opinion. (And, in any case, I will
> implement whatever is decided as soon as I can).
Excellent. To clarify: my remark in the previous message to this audit trail
wasn't really arguing in favor of one solution vs another, but really about the
actual implementability of some solutions
> Meanwhile, let's see if those are the only issues with -Wconversion and
> libstdc++.
>
> I hope you are happy with this plan, ok?
Sure. And on my part, I will quickly implement the library bits of the agreed
upon complete solution. Let's calmly weight the various options and then take
action, no hurry, the issue affects only mainline and only for a warning
outside -Wall and -Wextra, people can certainly keep one testing the other
changes in mainline with minor impact.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-01-20 19:13:03
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30464
