This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: check that a member function really operates on an object of the expected type

From: Erik <esigra at gmail dot com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:08:40 +0200
Subject: Re: check that a member function really operates on an object of the expected type
References: <49E4558C.3010307@gmail.com> <m363h75mkz.fsf@google.com> <49E4BC11.9030202@gmail.com> <m38wm341nb.fsf@google.com>

Ian Lance Taylor skrev:
> If you are instead holding a reference to a partially but not completely
> destroyed object, then I agree that dynamic_cast can work correctly.
> However, I personally don't see a sufficient reason to add yet another
> compiler option to support an arguably broken programming style.
>   

The purpose of the compiler option is certainly not to support a broken
programming style, but to detect it! (I recently fixed 2 such bugs in a
software with over 100 000 lines of C++ and would appreciate some help
to see if there are more of them.)

References:
- check that a member function really operates on an object of the expected type
  - From: Erik
- Re: check that a member function really operates on an object of the expected type
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: check that a member function really operates on an object of the expected type
  - From: Erik
- Re: check that a member function really operates on an object of the expected type
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]