On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:05 -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:00:49PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 15:47 -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
There are eight tests that check for that error message, although probably not in quite the same way.
I may be confused - this *is* g++.mike/p10769a.C we are talking about, yes? If so, I'd like to point out that g++.mike/p10769b.C appears to be constructively the exact same test case except with dg-error markers on the offending conversions instead of dg-boguses.
Except that p10769b.C doesn't use -Wno-pmf-conversions and gets different error messages.
My bad, I should read more carefully. Um, is -Wno-pmf-conversions a useful feature anymore, given that we are issuing errors with or without it?
It looks like we do still use that flag in a couple of places, and I don't see a deprecation note anywhere. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I distinctly thought we'd killed this off.
It looks like we do still accept:
struct S {
void f();
}; void g() {
reinterpret_cast<void*>(&S::f);
}But, the form in the test case where we are not even starting with a pointer-to-member, but merely the name of a member function. I think that's an intentional tightening; C++ doesn't allow you to do anything with the name of a member function, except call it. And, the tightening goes back at least to G++ 3.2, as far as I can tell. So, I think removing the test case is still OK.
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
