This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/36741] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus "large integer implicitly truncated" passing size_t constant to new
- From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 18 Aug 2008 16:03:29 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/36741] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus "large integer implicitly truncated" passing size_t constant to new
- References: <bug-36741-1313@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 16:03 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> I am stacking these here to not loose them, but at the same time, I am not sure
> if they are solid enough for submission to gcc-patches. I am still working on
> them.
s/loose/lose/
OK but if you are expecting comments you should send the patch to gcc-patches.
If they bootstrap+regtest they are solid enough to get comments in gcc-patches.
;-)
> I will submit a patch to gcc-patches when I fill a bit more confident :-)
s/fill/feel/
Do as you please but gcc-patches is where you will get the highest visibility.
Just say that you are asking for comments [RFC] or help [RFH] and be clear that
you are unsure about your approach. This will give reviewers a hint that they
must be extra-careful.
Plus, you can ask for extra testing in different machines.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36741