`better conversion sequence' warning -W name?

[Alexy Khrabrov]

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?

Cheers,
Alexy 

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:
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2000-06/msg00187.html
> 
> but it never went further, modulo comments on the spelling.)
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
> -- 
> 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
>