Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags

[Segher Boessenkool <segher@koffie.nl>]

The following reply was made to PR c/9072; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@koffie.nl>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: bangerth@dealii.org, 128950@bugs.debian.org, agthorr@barsoom.org,
	gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:57:26 +0100

 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
 > On 2 Feb 2003 bangerth@dealii.org wrote:
 > 
 > 
 >>    Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
 >>    seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
 > 
 > 
 > The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases.  It
 
 I didn't intend for it to be reviewed; I just asked if this was
 the kind of thing that was asked for.  Writing a good patch for
 this was far more work (esp. writing a testcase that covers
 all cases).  I have one in the works but as there was not
 much interest I dropped it on the floor.  If anyone still wants
 it, better speak up.
 
 > [0] This is very bad procedure; ignoring patches rather than explaining
 > what is wrong is far too likely to lose potential contributors.  It is,
 
 Agreed.
 
 > however, what happens; patches not following the standards are more
 > tedious to review than ones following the standards, and even many good
 > patches following the standards get ignored.  However, this patch was not
 > ignored; it received several comments on what ought to be done.
 
 True.  But no consensus was reached on whether this was a good idea
 at all.  As this is mostly tedious, non-fun work and I don't get
 paid a dime to do it, and no-one cheered me on, it wasn't a priority
 work for me (and I forgot about it, really).
 
 > I expect a patch that followed the GNU and GCC coding standards, including
 > thorough testcases, and implemented the simple specification I gave for
 > -Wconversion (warn for any implicit conversion that may change a value),
 > would get reviewed.
 
 I'd like to hear whether this change to the semantics of -Wconversion
 is likely to be accepted, first.
 
 
 Cheers,
 
 Segher