This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: `better conversion sequence' warning -W name?
- From: Alexy Khrabrov <alexy dot khrabrov at setup dot org>
- To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- Cc: Alexy Khrabrov <alexy dot khrabrov at setup dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:39:57 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: `better conversion sequence' warning -W name?
Thanks, Phil -- I didn't laugh so hard for a long time!
Now, in my CORBA implementations, one of which is 3GB of
compiled C++, it's quite often. So I'm eager to patch
g++ with your patches. I use gcc (1) 2.95.3 and (2) 3.1+.
Question: can I apply these patches to these versions?
+1 for -Wnotanidiot! RMS would approve, I hope?
Quoting Phil Edwards,
> 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