Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 26/09/11 09:53:
On 26 September 2011 09:32, Jon Grant wrote:
[.]
bool invalid = (NULL == p);
Why is that preferable?
It would be clearer IMHO what was happening.
I expect this depends on what the standard allows then.
4.12 Boolean conversions [conv.bool]
1
On 26 September 2011 09:32, Jon Grant wrote:
> Hello
>
> Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 26/09/11 08:10:
>>
>> On 26 September 2011 05:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> Jon Grant writes:
>>>
Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was
converted to a bool, in the same way i
Hello
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 26/09/11 08:10:
On 26 September 2011 05:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jon Grant writes:
Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was
converted to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
At least in C++, it's not really true to say "in
On 26 September 2011 05:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jon Grant writes:
>
>> Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was
>> converted to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
At least in C++, it's not really true to say "in the same way it is
for other types" because y
Jon Grant writes:
> Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was
> converted to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
There is a lot of code which uses
if (p)
where p is a pointer to test whether p is not NULL. I don't think we
could reasonably have gcc warn about
Hello
Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was converted
to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
Could I ask for opinion on this, and if I should create a bug ticket.
Please find below output from compilation, and attachments showing the
two tests.
gcc (Ubun
