This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: another effc++ spurious warning?
- From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- To: <gdr at acm dot org>
- Cc: "Paolo Carlini" <pcarlini at suse dot de>,"Benjamin Kosnik" <bkoz at redhat dot com>,<libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:59:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: another effc++ spurious warning?
- References: <066601c464e7$26741020$a54a2597@bagio> <40ED4313.703@suse.de> <06cf01c464ee$57acc130$a54a2597@bagio> <32793.::ffff:128.194.146.36.1089296733.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Those rules were designed for fairly old-fashioned code that
> mostly look like C code, i.e. verbose and a pain to evolve.
> As you pointed out, they don't make much sense for modern
> C++. I would suggest to just remove that check.
Well, you would suggest to remove -Weffc++ altogether (and I even might agree,
but still). I think it still have its uses for certain kind of code, and for
beginners. In that case, we still want this check. I don't think it makes sense
to disable a single warning of -Weffc++ unless it's proven totally useless.
I think you will easily agree that, for *that* kind of code, checking the
return type of operator++(int) is useful. So I am opposed to its removal unless
we can't find a way to compile v3 cleanly with it.
Giovanni Bajo