From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3112 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 02:06:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3084 invoked by uid 71); 3 Feb 2003 02:06:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 02:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030203020601.3083.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: c/9072: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags Reply-To: Segher Boessenkool X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/9072; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Segher Boessenkool To: "Joseph S. Myers" 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