--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-31
01:17 ---
Subject: Bug 19457
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-31 01:17:19
Modified files:
gcc/cp : call.c cp-tree.h semantics.c
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-31
01:22 ---
Fixed in 4.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-29
02:46 ---
The C++ front-end has a TREE_NEGATED_INT flag; it is that flag which is getting
cached incorrectly. The C++ front end is intentionally trying to warn about
conversions from negated integer constants, but
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-18
01:02 ---
: Search converges between 2004-08-19-trunk (#518) and 2004-08-20-trunk (#519).
Almost certin this was caused by:
2004-08-19 Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* doc/invoke.texi
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-15
16:49 ---
Confirmed, I have been wondering where this warning was coming from.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 17:07
---
(In reply to comment #1)
woudn't one exect that any constant = 0 to be compatible with signed or
unsigned, where
only constants 0 should be assumed to be only compatible with signed without
a cast?
--
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 17:17
---
(In reply to comment #2)
where futher then any constant not explictly negative should be considerd
compatible with either
signed or unsigned assignment; thereby 0x8000 is compatible with either, as
the
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 17:36
---
(In reply to comment #0)
Lasly, (sorry for not collecting all thoughts first), suspect the problem may
be that
~ is being considered as being analogous to an arithmetic -, which it shoudn't
be;
therefore
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-01-15 18:09
---
(In reply to comment #4)
(again sorry), nor should ~0 be considred equivelent to -1, any more than any
explicit
non-signed constant like 0x for example be (as previously questioned), as
such
values only
