From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29042 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2010 18:43:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 28984 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2010 18:43:48 -0000 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100216184348.28983.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/35669] NULL (__null) not considered different from 0 with C++ In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jason at redhat dot com" 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: 2010-02/txt/msg01578.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #25 from jason at redhat dot com 2010-02-16 18:43 ------- Subject: Re: NULL (__null) not considered different from 0 with C++ On 02/16/2010 01:27 PM, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > I guess you mean Wconversion-null instead of Wconversion-nul. Fine. OK with that change. > Any suggestions to give better location information in this warning? I guess > the location of null_node is useless. No real suggestions; to avoid using input_location we'd need to track locations all the way through the overload resolution code. I wonder if in 4.6 we want to start wrapping uses of shared nodes such as null_node or decls in order to retain location information. Jason -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35669