http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #5)
> I did. Please read what the C++ standard says about conversions. 4.7
> [conv.integral] paragraph 2 is a paraphrase of wording that has been in
> every C and C+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #5 from Nick Maclaren ---
I did. Please read what the C++ standard says about conversions. 4.7
[conv.integral] paragraph 2 is a paraphrase of wording that has been in
every C and C++ compiler since C90, and states that all integers (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #2)
> All values of int can be
> represented in unsigned long in any conforming implementation.
Except the negative ones!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Nick Maclaren from comment #2)
> I have no idea why you think that it is a narrowing conversion.
Please read the definition of a narrowing conversion in C++11, at 8.5.4
[dcl.init.list] p7. What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
--- Comment #2 from Nick Maclaren ---
I have no idea why you think that it is a narrowing conversion. The
references I gave have been essentially unchanged since C90, and there
is required to be no loss of information. All values of int can be
r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58093
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
