TheFlyingDutchman <zzbba...@aol.com> writes: > In this example RG is passing a long literal greater than INT_MAX to a > function that takes an int and the compiler apparently didn't give a > warning about the change in value as it created the cast to an int, > even with the option -Wall (all warnings). I think it's legitmate to > consider that an option for a warning/error on this condition should > be available. As far the compiler generating code that checks for a > change in value at runtime when a number is cast to a smaller data > type, I think that's also a legitimate request for a C compiler option > (in addition to other runtime check options like array subscript out > of bounds).
I think that it's a legitimate request, in this age and day, for a C programmer to require that it be NOT an option to a C compiler not to give any error for this and similar cases. (And we should just kill all the programs that don't pass this check, which I'm afraid would be a big number, which I understand, is the reason why C compilers don't change). -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
