On 10/11/2013 10:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>Since the coding standards say "Conversion operators should be
>avoided" (because they can't be explicit), I think this is the way
>to go.
We then violate the coding standard in vec.h:
/* Type to provide NULL values for vec. This is used to
prov
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:11:21AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >another
> >possibility is not to add operator bool () overload that introduces that
> >ambiguity, but then if (mask & something) needs to be replaced with
> >if ((mask & something) != 0) and operator != (int) added.
> >I guess I slig
On 10/11/2013 09:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
With the operator bool (), there is ambiguity in the
if (((mask >> something) & 1) == 0)
tests (so had to use OMP_CLAUSE_MASK_{1,0} instead of {1,0})
This is an example of why operator bool is a bad idea in general. If we
were using C++11, we could
Hi!
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:44:16PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> The recent change probably gave us this[1]:
>
> g++ -c -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -DIN_GCC_FRONTEND -g -O2 -DIN_GCC
> -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti
> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -W
