Re: [PATCH 0/4] bitpos expansion summary reloaded

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> (1) Check in the patchset as is while it is known not all type safety
Jan>     regressions have been caught.

Jan> (2) Fix all -Wconversion warnings, either by cast or by type extension,
Jan>     depending on the case.  But this can be done anytime later.

I think we should start with (1).

My rationale is that I consider the current patch set an improvement.
It may not be perfect, but it doesn't hurt anything, and I think the
various threads have shown that perfecting it as a precondition for
checking it in is too much to ask.


I was less convinced about (2), but while writing up my reasons why, I
convinced myself that it is a good idea.  It will let us notice new
introductions of value truncation problems.  We may make mistakes while
fixing the current code, specifically by introducing incorrect casts --
but whenever we do this, we are not regressing anything, all we are
doing is hiding a latent bug from a warning that we currently do not
enable.  That is, no real change.

This patch may make gdb uglier, in that we'll most likely add many new
casts to the code.  I think the resulting additional safety is probably
worth it.


I'm curious what your opinion is.  I didn't see it in your message.

Tom