On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Main offenders (last time I checked) seem be to
> (1) middle end and back end files who play `enum inheritance' tricks.
> (2) use of C++ keywords as variable names.
> (3) implicit conversion from void* to T* -- but we should have ver
> few of those
> now, because I did eliminate those I was aware of
Um, no. I see 1089 warnings of type #3. :-/
> (4) minor: some differences in `const' semantics.
>
> -Wc++-compat needs to be augmented to check for C++ keywords
> (a deficiency in current implementation).
Yes, PR21759. Will you be able to work on that? (Or at least, list in
the PR what the reserved keywords are in case someone else wants to?)
>
> I'm `on the road' and my laptop is a `windows only' box.
>
> >
> > These are mechanical and can be fixed with simple casts. Again, IMHO
> > these non-controversial patches should go straight into mainline.
> > Once done we can -Werror this warning and avoid regressions.
>
> Strongly agree. Would you mind submitting the patch for activation of
> -Wc++-compat?
Done.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
