https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #18 from Marek Polacek ---
The casts that are still warned about should really be useless so I don't plan
to add another warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #16)
> Should be fixed now.
It seems the fix just silenced the -Wuseless-cast false positive without also
adding the separate -Wcast-to-the-same-type flag to cover th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3c98d6a59a6dcd5b0b52bd5676b586ef4fe785f
commit r13-3388-gb3c98d6a59a6dcd5b0b52bd5676b586ef4fe785f
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek ---
I've encountered this bug with:
struct S { };
void g(S&&);
void
f (S&& arg)
{
g(S(arg)); // warning: useless cast to type 'struct S'
}
which doesn't compile without the cast, because then "arg" is an lv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||prokofjev.d at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
That approach would be definitely Ok with me, Eric.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> Thanks. I'm seriously wondering if this is also a problem with the name of
> the warning, because, I suppose, the same warning named
> -Wcast-to-the-same-type wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Why would user-provided copy ctor matter? In this testcase there is no
> user-provided copy ctor, what matters is that the static cast is handled
> through
> p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> Maybe we could suppress the warning for explicit type conversions using
> functional notation, i.e. A(a), when the copy constructor is user-provided.
>
> It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe we could suppress the warning for explicit type conversions using
functional notation, i.e. A(a), when the copy constructor is user-provided.
It's not a perfect heuristic. It would still warn for (A)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85043
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
20 matches
Mail list logo
