--- Comment #15 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-28 19:10 ---
FYI: I'm right now auditing the code for conversions larger - smaller integer
type and immediately adjusting it in the process. Only very few so far. To be
clear, I'm punting on conversions between same size types which,
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 19:47 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
FYI: I'm right now auditing the code for conversions larger - smaller integer
type and immediately adjusting it in the process. Only very few so far. To be
clear, I'm punting on
--- Comment #17 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-28 20:05 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
I think that we agreed that people using -Wconversion do want warnings for
larger-smaller conversions. When you mention same size types, do you mean
conversions between signed and unsigned
--- Comment #18 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-28 20:10 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
I am also interested in how many (negative constant)-unsigned conversions you
have found, because I would like to keep those in Wconversion as they have
always been.
None. If you are positive
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-20 10:15 ---
Paolo or Gerald, could you try to collect a list of the warnings produced by
-Wconversion? I am only interested in the warning message, not where it was
instantiated, so please, filter it through fgrep warning: .
You
--- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-20 11:58 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Paolo or Gerald, could you try to collect a list of the warnings produced by
-Wconversion?
Hi. I will double check ASAP, but definitely most of them are about signed -
unsigned, exactly like
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-20 12:32 ---
I am also interested in seeing if there are any (large signed) - (small
unsigned) and bring them to the discussion, where all positive values fit in
the unsigned (so no warning) or there is a sign conversion.
About
--- Comment #14 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-20 19:13 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
I am also interested in seeing if there are any (large signed) - (small
unsigned) and bring them to the discussion, where all positive values fit in
the unsigned (so no warning) or there is a
--- Comment #10 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 11:09 ---
Subject: Re: [regression] -Wconversion triggers warnings for
deque::push_back()
pcarlini at suse dot de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Gaby, any news about the signed - unsigned warning itself? Are we going to
| keep
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-17 04:20 ---
*** Bug 30463 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30464
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-17 04:22 ---
Gaby, any news about the signed - unsigned warning itself? Are we going to
keep it or are we coming to the conclusion it's too noisy?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30464
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-15 16:14 ---
Subject: Re: [regression] -Wconversion triggers warnings for
deque::push_back()
pcarlini at suse dot de [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| (In reply to comment #5)
| Sorry I read your reply later.
|
| So, that is it,
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-14 23:03 ---
Gerald,
One thing is whether the warning was incorrect or not. Looking at the code and
the definition of Wconversion, what do you think?
Another thing is whether we want or not to emit warnings for libstdc++. I don't
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-14 23:08 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
...So I guess this is not a system header.
In fact, it *is* a system header :-( See my message to gcc@
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30464
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-14 23:15 ---
So I cannot understand why are we warning. Warnings in system headers should
only be emitted when using -Wsystem-headers.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30464
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-14 23:22 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
So I cannot understand why are we warning. Warnings in system headers should
only be emitted when using -Wsystem-headers.
Did you read my reply? Again: the system_header pragma does *not* work
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-14 23:37 ---
Sorry I read your reply later.
So, that is it, isn't it? Wsystem-headers needs to be fixed since we don't want
to emit warnings for system headers even if those warnings are correct.
--
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-15 00:30 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Sorry I read your reply later.
So, that is it, isn't it? Wsystem-headers needs to be fixed since we don't
want
to emit warnings for system headers even if those warnings are correct.
Well,
18 matches
Mail list logo
