This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: a warning to implement
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Cc: gdr at codesourcery dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, coola at ngs dot ru, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pcarlini at unitus dot it
- Date: 05 Feb 2002 06:33:54 +0100
- Subject: Re: a warning to implement
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <20020203142004.2EAB5F28F3@nile.gnat.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Dewar) writes:
| <Well, that construct have been debated to death in the C++ committee.
| And given the length of the debate and the opinions expressed there I
| would certainly *not* characterize it as obviously dubious. I would
| object to have it enabled by -Wall.
| What possible useful semantic meaning can this statement have? I can see
| a debate in the C++ committee as to whether it should be legal or not (that's
| quite a subtle issue, and indeed could be expected to generate debate), but
| I can't imagine a debate over whether it is useful or not. So I see no basis
| for your objection.
Then you're wrong because the issue of the debate wasn't whether it
should be valid statement; the issue was whether it could be a useful
construct -- incidentally some wanted to make it ill-formed.
Can you imagine use of signaling NaNs?