On 18/01/07, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
[...]
| > As the PR you noted, it wasn't part of C++.
| >
|
| You are wrong.
"the PR you noted" is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26167#c3
which you described as your favorite. The PR starts with this
gcc reports the signedness probelm correctly, but g++ does not. See
below for a demonstration:
[...]
Gabriel, I gave you all the information with revision numbers
included. I did my homework. If you didn't believe me you could have
proved me wrong just by running g++ with -Wconversion at that
revision (or 4.1 or 4.2) and checking whether there was a warning for
unsigned int ui = -1; or not. Moreover, in the comments of the PR, I
also explained why the reporter had the wrong impression that there
was a difference between C and C++ diagnostics for signed->unsigned
conversions. I obviously wasted my time.
Honestly, I don't want to enter in a discussion about you said this,
you said that when any one can read and test what I / you said by
himself/herself.
I feel that I researched and wrote the above mail (and the comments on
the PR) for nothing and I wasted my afternoon when I should be in bed
drinking hot soup, hot milk with honey or sleeping.
So I will stop here and I will wait until Joseph gives his opinion.
Manuel.
