[cfe-dev] Attempt 2 at CXX Namespaces

Eli Friedman eli.friedman at gmail.com
Tue Feb 26 10:48:30 PST 2008

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:-
>  > On Feb 25, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
>  > > (clang unfortunately has to be
>  > > extremely loose about pointer conversions in general.)
>  >
>  >
>  > I think we can tighten this up in C++ mode, right?
>  Shouldn't we warn even for C without -pedantic?  I know I as
>  a user would like that.

Yeah, we probably should... gcc warns, so it shouldn't be an issue.
We should be careful not to warn by default about implicit
signed/unsigned conversion, though; people are likely to get annoyed
at a compiler warning that they're passing an int16_t* to a function
expecting a uint16_t*.


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list