On 12 May 2012 20:15, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 05/12/2012 07:51 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
>>
>> It seems very conservative also to me. I think the code should just
>> unconditionally recurse on the operands of COND_EXPR. The recursion
>> should then take care of the casts. So then c = b ? c
On 05/12/2012 07:51 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
It seems very conservative also to me. I think the code should just
unconditionally recurse on the operands of COND_EXPR. The recursion
should then take care of the casts. So then c = b ? c : i; will warn
about 'i', not about the whole condition
On 12 May 2012 19:34, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the below is my (very conservative, I think) interpretation of what we
> recently summarized we want to do wrt these -Wconversion warnings in the
> conditional expressions context. Of course many details could be different,
> please let me know.
Hi,
the below is my (very conservative, I think) interpretation of what we
recently summarized we want to do wrt these -Wconversion warnings in the
conditional expressions context. Of course many details could be
different, please let me know... This is booted and tested on x86_64-linux.
Tha
