From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19505 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2011 19:44:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 19488 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2011 19:44:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:44:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9BJiNhM030888 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:44:23 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9BJiK8h012744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:44:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4E949C94.4000004@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:44:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] c++/13225 References: <4E9495DB.8010109@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2 On 10/11/2011 12:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz 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