On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:10 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> Main offenders (last time I checked) seem be to >> (1) middle end and back end files who play `enum inheritance' tricks. >> (2) use of C++ keywords as variable names. >> (3) implicit conversion from void* to T* -- but we should have ver >> few of those >> now, because I did eliminate those I was aware of > > Um, no. I see 1089 warnings of type #3. :-/
gasp :-( > > >> (4) minor: some differences in `const' semantics. >> >> -Wc++-compat needs to be augmented to check for C++ keywords >> (a deficiency in current implementation). > > Yes, PR21759. Will you be able to work on that? (Or at least, list in > the PR what the reserved keywords are in case someone else wants to?) Yes, I'll work on it. >> I'm `on the road' and my laptop is a `windows only' box. >> >> > >> > These are mechanical and can be fixed with simple casts. Again, IMHO >> > these non-controversial patches should go straight into mainline. >> > Once done we can -Werror this warning and avoid regressions. >> >> Strongly agree. Would you mind submitting the patch for activation of >> -Wc++-compat? > > Done. Many thanks. -- Gaby
