Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:06:58 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Compiler options for djdev build
In-Reply-To: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGEAKCEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010610125957.6827B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > GCC is complaining because we asked it to with -Wconversion.  I think
> > -Wconversion is useful because it flags code that could break if small
> > changes are introduced into the code.
> 
> >From what has been said, it would only break if chars, shorts or floats
> were passed to a function without a prototype.

As I wrote, they also break if you convert a normal function to a vararg 
function.

> IMHO, the annoyance of getting this kind of warning far outweighs the
> usefulness of getting 'x = -1' (where x is unsigned) flagged (the only
> other effect of -Wconversion).

Unlike other warnings, this one is so easy to fix that I wouldn't call it 
annoyance.

Compare this with the `char *' vs `const char *' issue--we went as far as 
inventing a special trick, just to be able to use one of -Wall's warnings.
Even the signed vs unsigned problems that Martin just fixed are much 
trickier than this one.

For such a low price, I fail to see why is this flag met with such a 
staunch opposition.  Are you saying that it is useless in general, and 
that GCC maintainers should have never added it?