This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: `better conversion sequence' warning -W name?
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: Alexy Khrabrov <alexy dot khrabrov at setup dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:56:24 -0400
- Subject: Re: `better conversion sequence' warning -W name?
- References: <200208162335.g7GNZgp2032030@angle.badbox.com>
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 07:35:42PM -0400, Alexy Khrabrov wrote:
> MMS_EntryImpl.C: In method `MMS_EntryImpl::MMS_EntryImpl(PortableServer::POA *, const char *)':
> MMS_EntryImpl.C:48: warning: choosing `PortableServer::ObjectId_var::operator PortableServer::ObjectId &()' over `PortableServer::ObjectId_var::operator const PortableServer::ObjectId &() const'
> MMS_EntryImpl.C:48: warning: for conversion from `PortableServer::ObjectId_var' to `const PortableServer::ObjectId &'
> MMS_EntryImpl.C:48: warning: because conversion sequence for the argument is bette
> I've tried -Wno-conversion, but that's not it. Anybody knows whether that
> warning has a name?
It doesn't. The only way to kill that annoying text is by turning off
all warnings with -w.
We've been talking over this for at least two years. (That was when I made
a bid to give the warning a name:
but it never went further, modulo comments on the spelling.)
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002