From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31027 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2007 01:11:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 30980 invoked by uid 48); 17 Jan 2007 01:11:45 -0000 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070117011145.30979.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/11856] unsigned warning in template In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01320.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 01:11 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > | We don't emit a warning when instantiated as a signed char, so everything > boils > | down to having an option to disable the warning, doesn't it? > > the logical inference escapes me. > Is having an option to disable the warning the right fix for this PR or is it not? If it is, there is a patch pending review. If it is not, could you explain what would be the correct behaviour? Thanks. -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|manu at gcc dot gnu dot org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu | |dot org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856