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
