[OFF TOPIC, sorry..]

James Dennett wrote:

> [...] a compiler [...] which terminated
> successful, error-free runs by printing "None of the errors
> were found."  A good warning, if ever I saw one.

Or, you could even go so far as the Metrowerks 5 C++ compiler, which
emits a message at the end of a successful compilation saying

   ERROR: 0 errors

(Wow, the condition of having 0 errors is an error? :-).
--
Shankar Unni
shankar@webnexus.com

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

> It is, and this is a deliberate decision (one that I think is wrong).

Hmmm, would it be illegal for the compiler to issue a warning?


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Greg Brewer wrote:
>
> > It is, and this is a deliberate decision (one that I think is wrong).
>
> Hmmm, would it be illegal for the compiler to issue a warning?

Never.  Compilers can issue as many warnings as they feel
like, and still conform to the C++ Standard.  Didn't someone
here (or in clcm) mention a compiler (for Fortran I think,
although the approach is valid in C++) which terminated
successful, error-free runs by printing "None of the errors
were found."  A good warning, if ever I saw one.

-- James Dennett

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Greg Brewer <nospam.greg@brewer.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
9dh71j$1j5i$1@news.hal-pc.org...
> I just found the following
> class AC
> {
> public:
>      CB &cb;
>     AC(CB &cd) : cb(cb) {}
> };
>
> The compiler didn't catch it -- no warning or error.  I assume it is legal
> but should it be?


Check GotW#80 (Order Order!) on comp.lang.c++.moderated.

TiTi


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

Radoslav Getov <nospam@mai.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
tfvirhffj51e71@corp.supernews.com...
> "Greg Brewer" <nospam.greg@brewer.net> wrote in message
> news:9dh71j$1j5i$1@news.hal-pc.org...
> > I just found the following
> > class AC
> > {
> > public:
> >      CB &cb;
> >     AC(CB &cd) : cb(cb) {}
> > };
> >
> > The compiler didn't catch it -- no warning or error.  I assume it is
legal
> > but should it be?

> It's even worse:
> int x = x;
> is legal I think and my compiler agrees, but should it be?

The question is, when is your object actually defined?

    int x = x;
is equivalent to:
    int x(x);

Now should the following compile?
    struct X { X(const X& other); /*...*/};
    X x(x);
    X y = y;

IOW, you're trying to use an object before it is constructed.


TiTi


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

I just found the following
class AC
{
public:
     CB &cb;
    AC(CB &cd) : cb(cb) {}
};

The compiler didn't catch it -- no warning or error.  I assume it is legal
but should it be?

Greg Brewer



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

"Greg Brewer" <nospam.greg@brewer.net> wrote in message
news:9dh71j$1j5i$1@news.hal-pc.org...
> I just found the following
> class AC
> {
> public:
>      CB &cb;
>     AC(CB &cd) : cb(cb) {}
> };
>
> The compiler didn't catch it -- no warning or error.  I assume it is legal
> but should it be?
>
> Greg Brewer
>
>

It's even worse:

int x = x;

is legal I think and my compiler agrees, but should it be?

Radoslav Getov



---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]

In article <tfvirhffj51e71@corp.supernews.com>, Radoslav Getov
<nospam@mai.com> writes
>It's even worse:
>
>int x = x;
>
>is legal I think and my compiler agrees, but should it be?

It is, and this is a deliberate decision (one that I think is wrong).
PCLint++ picks this idiocy up (that was something I requested about six
years ago, and Gimpel Software added it very promptly)



Francis Glassborow      ACCU
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA          +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.research.att.com/~austern/csc/faq.html                ]