On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:35 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Looks pretty reasonable - but are these two separate code changes, or do
> they interrelate in some way? If they're separate changes that can have
> separate test cases, it'd be nice to commit them each in their on commit
> just for clarity.
>
Yes, I can separate them into two pieces when I submit them.
>
> Have you considered/plan to look at non-type template parameters?
>
> template<int Num>
> bool greater(unsigned Val) {
> return Val >= Num;
> }
>
> ... greater<0>(42); ...
>
> I'm not sure if this tickles the same kind of problem or not - but might
> be worth checking.
>
> I haven't seen this case yet, but I would say it is good to include this
test case too. I think changing the check to an instantiation dependency
check would allow it to catch this case as well.
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This patch turns off the tautological compare warnings when one of the
>> operands is a template parameter type. There's not an easy way to correct
>> the code or silence this warning so this way seemed to be the best
>> solution. Anyone have any thoughts on altering the behavior of this
>> warning?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
