From: rpolzer AT web DOT de (Rudolf Polzer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Windows ME and DJGPP
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010131101046 DOT 29266K-100000 AT is> <3a78130f DOT 16030234 AT news DOT freeserve DOT net> <hd3h7t8mj9s6ijjij6bjd7vokshe4gcvel AT 4ax DOT com>
X-newsgroup: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
X-Mailer: GehtDichNenScheissdreckAn 1.0
User-Agent: GehtDichNenScheissdreckAn 1.0
Message-ID: <slrn97j54u.sj.rpolzer@rebounce.rpolzer-lx>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:53:50 +0100
Lines: 47
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.7.23.119
X-Trace: 981046055 news.freenet.de 23436 213.7.23.119
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT freenet DOT de
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk> schrieb Folgendes:
> dontmailme AT iname DOT com (Steamer) wrote:
> 
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > > Hmm?  Is this in C or in C++?  I don't think you need any casts in a C
> > > program for assigning int to a double or the other way around.
> > 
> > Nor do you in C++.  It's strange that GCC chooses to warn about
> > this in C++ but not in C.
> 
> Even stranger when you consider that it does so without even *any*
> -W... switches.  Unless, that is, you are of the opinion that this is
> an "obviously dangerous conversion" - [BS; CPL3].
> 
> Apart from the obvious problem that the value will be truncated to an
> integer, there is also undefined behaviour when the integer value is
> outside the range of an int.  Of course, an explicit conversion says
> to gcc: Yes! I really wanted to do that, and the warning goes away:
> 
> float f = 1.2;
> int i = int(f);

And what about unsigned int?
static_cast<unsigned int> (f)?

I hate C-style casts because I do not know what they do; they are a
mixture of static_cast and reinterpret_cast. So I do not like
(unsigned int) f
.

> This would surely cause problems when using a severe set of warnings,
> but everyone aims to get a clean compile with -Wall, right? ;-)

ACK. They are _warnings_ and not _errors_.

Why not suggest to the gcc maintainers that gcc should print
x.cpp:3 warning: instantiated from here
or
x.cpp:3 error: instantiated from here
instead of
x.cpp:3 instantiated from here
? The RHIDE problem would go away immediately.

-- 
Nuper erat medicus, nunc est vispillo, Diaulus:
Quod vispillo facit, fecerat et medicus.