From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7937 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2012 06:19:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 7907 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Aug 2012 06:19:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:19:28 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M8V00M00YIY0D00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:19:27 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M8V00LJZYWFZH30@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:19:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:19:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA 3/3] c++/13356: Update documentation In-reply-to: <502D5D3A.7020706@redhat.com> To: Keith Seitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83boiaavly.fsf@gnu.org> References: <502D54F9.2090909@redhat.com> <83d32qbm8x.fsf@gnu.org> <502D5D3A.7020706@redhat.com> 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:51:06 -0700 > From: Keith Seitz > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On 08/16/2012 01:44 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:15:53 -0700 > >> From: Keith Seitz > >> > >> +The second example fails because the integer constant @samp{0x1234} is not > >> +type-compatible with the pointer parameter type. > > > > Why not? if the current language is C, I see no incompatibilities > > here. What am I missing? > > That conversion is forbidden by C++. Perhaps I should have used a method > call instead to make that more obvious? Yes, that would be good. And/or explicitly tell that C++ forbids that. Thanks.