On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: | 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.
I'm less in the business of assigning "you're wrong", than you seem to be. And I don't mind you prove me wrong; we get a better understanding of the issue. However, fixating on "proving wrong" derails the discussion. In the PR, you noted: If you mean that gcc (and g++) should warn that a signed variable is passed to a function that expects an unsigned variable, then when using the -Wcoercion flag (provided by the Wcoercion project [*]), both cc1 and cc1plus report: [...] | 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. and I should have prepared more slides for my classes, and close more PRs for GCC-4.0.4. -- Gaby
