On 20 December 2006 00:39, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 20/12/06, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Heh. Or you could always make it a divide-by-zero error instead :)
>
> Oh, sorry. I didn't get this. If you would be so kind to elaborate...
Possibly the world's only attempt ever a
On 20/12/06, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 17 December 2006 12:56, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> For me, the
> best would be to NOT enable the warning for Wextra, so I don't need to
> come up with a name for this warning flag. Otherwise, we would have to
> document that the warning is en
On 17 December 2006 12:56, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Currently Wextra warns about a pointer compared against integer zero
> with <, <=, >, or >=. This warning is not available in C++ (the
> documentation does not say this) and it is implemented in
> gcc/c-typeck.c (build_binary_op) in this mann
Dear all,
Currently Wextra warns about a pointer compared against integer zero
with <, <=, >, or >=. This warning is not available in C++ (the
documentation does not say this) and it is implemented in
gcc/c-typeck.c (build_binary_op) in this manner:
else if (code0 == POINTER_TYPE && null_po
