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

Reply via email to