From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9348 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2008 23:38:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 9340 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2008 23:38:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MX,SPF_FAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx20.gnu.org (HELO mx20.gnu.org) (199.232.41.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:37:59 +0000 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LDouq-0007GX-6a for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:37:56 -0500 Received: (qmail 5881 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2008 23:37:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 Dec 2008 23:37:54 -0000 Message-ID: <494C304B.8080101@codesourcery.com> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:13:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Merrill CC: Jakub Jelinek , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F1ez?= , Gcc Patch List Subject: Re: PR c++/36921 [4.3/4.4 Regression] warning "comparison does not have mathematical meaning" is not correct for overloaded operators that do not return boolean References: <6c33472e0810250750y33c10265g3195e8613de1b1fc@mail.gmail.com> <20081025162735.GM14706@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <6c33472e0811041414l57b4b98ibb84350dcf60117f@mail.gmail.com> <494C2488.7000002@redhat.com> <20081219231529.GK17496@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <494C2E6C.8090006@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <494C2E6C.8090006@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-12/txt/msg01085.txt.bz2 Jason Merrill wrote: > Mark: I understand your objection on the basis of user-defined Boolean > types, but I think that the false positive rate for this warning for > arbitrary overloads such as the PR submitter's is likely to outweigh the > false negatives for Boolean classes. I'm just not sure. That also means I don't object if everyone else feels that it makes sense to avoid the warning. :-) Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713