HI Stephan,
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 15:25 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 12:13 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > Background: we have in sc/source/filter/inc/ftools.hxx supposedly
> > "safe" casts that are (according to the Doxygen documentation)
> > supposed to be safer than just sta
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 11:50 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 12:13 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > Background: we have in sc/source/filter/inc/ftools.hxx supposedly
> > "safe" casts that are (according to the Doxygen documentation)
> > supposed to be safer than just static
On 02/29/2012 12:13 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Background: we have in sc/source/filter/inc/ftools.hxx supposedly
"safe" casts that are (according to the Doxygen documentation)
supposed to be safer than just static_cast. As fdo#39589 uncovered,
they are actually so buggy as to be *less* safe.
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 12:13 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> Background: we have in sc/source/filter/inc/ftools.hxx supposedly
> "safe" casts that are (according to the Doxygen documentation)
> supposed to be safer than just static_cast. As fdo#39589 uncovered,
> they are actually so buggy as to
Background: we have in sc/source/filter/inc/ftools.hxx supposedly
"safe" casts that are (according to the Doxygen documentation)
supposed to be safer than just static_cast. As fdo#39589 uncovered,
they are actually so buggy as to be *less* safe.
Back in November, I wrote a prototype _actually_ saf
