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

[Segher Boessenkool]

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2003 bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
> 
> 
>>    Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
>>    seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
> 
> 
> The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases.  It

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.

> [0] This is very bad procedure; ignoring patches rather than explaining
> what is wrong is far too likely to lose potential contributors.  It is,

Agreed.

> however, what happens; patches not following the standards are more
> tedious to review than ones following the standards, and even many good
> patches following the standards get ignored.  However, this patch was not
> ignored; it received several comments on what ought to be done.

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).

> I expect a patch that followed the GNU and GCC coding standards, including
> thorough testcases, and implemented the simple specification I gave for
> -Wconversion (warn for any implicit conversion that may change a value),
> would get reviewed.

I'd like to hear whether this change to the semantics of -Wconversion
is likely to be accepted, first.


Cheers,

Segher