This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] c++/13225
- From: Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org ml" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:44:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA] c++/13225
- References: <4E9495DB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 10/11/2011 12:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Keith" == Keith Seitz<firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Sami updated overloading resolution to more faithfully follow the C++
spec. So, I think it would be useful to justify this patch in terms of
Other than the "0" case (which shouldn't elicit a warning (but will)), I
cannot justify allowing int -> pointer conversion via the standard. I
was simply thinking of the (non-stupid) user who wanted (more
generically) to do:
(gdb) print my_function (0x1234578)
That *would* require a cast, but I cannot convince myself that gdb need
be so strict. Issue a warning about a non-standard conversion and do it.
"0" is, of course, a special case for pointer conversion. The standard
explicitly allows that (4.10.1 in n3290 draft).
Let me know what you would like me to do.