This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Wconversion versus Wcoercion


On 10/06/06, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> 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.

Cheers,

Manuel.


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