This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Wconversion versus Wcoercion
On 10/06/06, Andrew Pinski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Here is my vote, have four options:
-Wconversion the same as now.
This is bad idea. Currently many people are relying in undocumented
behaviour or the false perception that Wconversion detects risky
conversions. If we keep Wconversion, they will keep using it wrongly.
(I don't think most people will read Changelogs).
-Wprototype-conversion turns on part of -Wconversion
That is fine. Although, Wprototype-conversion seems like a conversion
caused by the prototype and the warning actually is about conversions
caused by a prototype that would be different in the absence of
prototype. I think the name could be better.
-Wcoercion the option you are dealing with
That is fine.
-Wconversion-signed the other part of the doc for -Wconversion
I don't see the point on this. Wconversion-signed must be included in
Wcoercion anyway. Now, one may argue if each functionality of
Wcoercion should have its own option. If you think so, then
Wcoercion-signed makes sense. Yet, we can argue about this later.
Let's focus on what to do with Wconversion
My new proposal: (c) make Wconversion obsolete.