Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags

[Agthorr <agthorr at barsoom dot org>]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 02:57:26AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> I didn't intend for it to be reviewed; I just asked if this was
> the kind of thing that was asked for.  Writing a good patch for
> this was far more work (esp. writing a testcase that covers
> all cases).  I have one in the works but as there was not
> much interest I dropped it on the floor.  If anyone still wants
> it, better speak up.

Hello,

I'm the person who originally filed this bug.  Your patch does indeed
seem to do what I want, and I would love to see it (or something
similar) in a future version of gcc.  I agree that passing a parameter
to a function should be considered an assignment for -Wconversion
purposes.  I also agree with Joseph Myers' statement that -Wconversion
should "warn for any implicit conversion that may change a value".

> True.  But no consensus was reached on whether this was a good idea
> at all.  As this is mostly tedious, non-fun work and I don't get
> paid a dime to do it, and no-one cheered me on, it wasn't a priority
> work for me (and I forgot about it, really).

CHEER!  CHEER!

I apologize for not responding sooner.  I'm a graduate student and
have been ill on-and-off since mid-December.  This does not make for
free time for responding to email :)

I realize that this is not a high-priority issue, but I do appreciate
any effort that goes into making -Wconversion more useful.

-- Agthorr