------- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-06-27 19:17 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > I think that's a good definition. My impression is that dynamic_cast is fairly > expensive,
But only if the compiler can't know the actual type of an object (which is exactly the case that you want to treat). If the actual type of an object is known or if you are casting to a base class, dynamic_cast is as cheap as static_cast. > "I doubt anyone will ever implement this." > > I've gotten used to that. :) Well, people implement what they consider important to them. PRs about uninteresting things will lie dormant until there are no interesting things left to implement. I think everyone's time would be better used if you tried to find cases where gcc doesn't produce a no-op for the constructs you want to warn about. That would be a missed-optimization, rather than a more or less uninteresting warning, and would receive more interest. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32525
