From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31105 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2008 16:10:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 30882 invoked by uid 48); 1 Apr 2008 16:09:31 -0000 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080401160931.30881.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/35592] Want attribute to enable precision loss warning In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "felix-gcc at fefe dot de" 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #4 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2008-04-01 16:09 ------- I'm not familiar enough with how gcc works to say whether warning about precision loss that turns out important later on can be done at all. But I think we should not reject an idea because it only handles 60% of the cases. Instead we should be happy we only have to worry about the other 40%, not about 100% from then on. I agree that signed int to size_t conversion for memcpy should also be warned about by some attribute. Could be done by the same attribute. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35592