On 07/10/2014 06:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
if (SCALAR_TYPE_P (type))
+ if (!CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (init)))
Why this change? check_narrowing only deals with scalar types.
Jason
... and of course the problem with all such ideas is that we easily end
up warning twice in all the simple cases which check_narrowing can
already handle. Something like the attached has more chances of passing
the testsuite while not regressing in terms of duplicate warnings (which
are hard to
... the below is another, very safe, option for setting
LOOKUP_NO_NARROWING in flags.
Paolo.
Index: call.c
===
--- call.c (revision 212431)
+++ call.c (working copy)
@@ -3586,7 +3586,8 @@ build_user_type_conversion_1 (tree
Hi,
On 07/10/2014 10:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, why aren't we already getting the error from
if (convs->check_narrowing)
check_narrowing (totype, expr);
in convert_like_real? Is it that we need to copy LOOKUP_NO_NARROWING
into convflags in build_user_type_conversion_1?
Ah, ah,
Hmm, why aren't we already getting the error from
if (convs->check_narrowing)
check_narrowing (totype, expr);
in convert_like_real? Is it that we need to copy LOOKUP_NO_NARROWING
into convflags in build_user_type_conversion_1?
Jason
Hi,
after more than 2 years, I'm finally back to this issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01442.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01502.html
and the below draft, which passes testing, tries to implement as closely
as possible what Jason suggested in th
