[PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded
Tue Oct 23 01:34:00 GMT 2012
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 22:45:35 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> IIUC, this patch fixes some subset of -Wconversion warnings but leaves
> the rest untouched.
Yes. The goal of all this work has been to automatically separate out which
of these warnings are safe and which are not.
> Would it be very hard or ugly if we just tried to fix them all, and then
> enabled -Wconversion in configure? Aside from maybe some code ugliness,
> I wonder what the downsides would be.
So far I did not consider such task as doable. This work was about ~660
warnings while I have checked -Wconversion is at least 2500 warnings to solve.
With the FSF ChangeLogs and reviewing rules the situation is more difficult.
> The reason I ask is that I'm concerned about our ability to maintain
> this change properly, and I wonder if this would be a cheap way to
> handle the more mechanical aspects.
Cheap for future reviewing. But more expensive for the initial change.
More information about the Gdb-patches