This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] c++/13225

On 10/11/2011 12:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Keith" == Keith Seitz<keiths@redhat.com> 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
the standard.

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.

Keith

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]