--- Comment #11 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-14 23:20
---
Fixed for 4.3.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #10 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-14 23:17
---
Subject: Bug 30860
Author: mueller
Date: Wed Mar 14 23:17:03 2007
New Revision: 122934
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122934
Log:
2007-03-15 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-20 09:53 ---
In reply to comment #4
The case that made me file this bug is changed overload resolution for a
false argument vs. a true argument.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30860
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 20:50 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> there is an implicit value conversion, boolean "false" to address "0". I think
> that is the definition of -Wconversion, no?
>
> anyway, I'll work on a patch.
>
Take a look at http://gcc.g
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-02-19 20:49 ---
Subject: Re: Should warn about boolean constant false used in pointer context
"mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| there is an implicit value conversion, boolean "false" to address "0". I
thi
--- Comment #6 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 20:23 ---
there is an implicit value conversion, boolean "false" to address "0". I think
that is the definition of -Wconversion, no?
anyway, I'll work on a patch.
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wh
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #5 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-02-19 19:59 ---
Subject: Re: Should warn about boolean constant false used in pointer context
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| No, it is not. And I don't think it should be warned by -Wconversion. After
| a
--- Comment #4 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-02-19 19:48 ---
Subject: Re: Should warn about boolean constant false used in pointer context
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I don't see why we should warn about a very valid and well defined and will
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 19:14 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> manu, is this something already covered by your pending -Wconversion fixes?
>
No, it is not. And I don't think it should be warned by -Wconversion. After
all, no value is changed during the
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 19:01 ---
I don't see why we should warn about a very valid and well defined and will
always work on every compiler. You want to warn about a specific coding style
which I think is wrong in this case (and in the -Weffc++ case
--- Comment #1 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 16:43 ---
manu, is this something already covered by your pending -Wconversion fixes?
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
12 matches
Mail list logo
