--- Comment #16 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2009-12-22 18:12 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
you missed the part where I said but 0 is still a valid definition of NULL
(I didn't quote it but I did explicitly agree with it.)
You claimed in comment 12 that the compiler
--- Comment #14 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2009-12-21 20:02 ---
so [implicit] conversion from NULL to int is OK.
That's true where NULL is defined as 0 (or eg 0L), but that's not the only
permitted definition of NULL.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35669
--- Comment #12 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2009-04-29 16:47 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
180) Possible definitions include 0 and 0L, but not (void*)0.
That doesn't forbid defining NULL as nullptr though clearly gcc is within the
current Standard to effectively define it as 0
--- Comment #19 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2007-11-25 21:41 ---
(We finally got round to throwing the switch on our next release from gcc-3.3
to gcc-4.2. It works great - the compiled code gets us significantly higher
benchmark numbers and we're appreciating improved error
--- Comment #5 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2007-10-12 17:11 ---
Adding extra parentheses, such that bool (2 1) becomes bool ((2 1 )),
is a work-around.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33744
--- Comment #3 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2007-10-12 13:19 ---
(I'm told that) these two function-style casts compile fine on 4.2.1:
template bool cond
struct A {
};
Abool (2) y;
Abool (2 1) z;
This is why I suggest the greater-than is a necessary part of the bug. Do you
have
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mdorey at bluearc dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33744
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: mdorey at bluearc dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #8 from mdorey at bluearc dot com 2006-03-16 04:31 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Nathan could you comment on this bug.
Two years with no comment. Is it because the Severity is set to Enhancement?
I'm convinced that the warning is incorrect, not missing, so I think
--- Additional Comments From mdorey at bluearc dot com 2005-04-26 19:53
---
(In reply to comment #5)
Nathan could you comment on this bug.
This bug may be related to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17519
There's an interesting discussion in that bug, including comments
10 matches
Mail list logo
