Re: [boost] [wave][function] Suppressing gcc-4.4.1 warnings

Subject: Re: [boost] [wave][function] Suppressing gcc-4.4.1 warnings
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-06 19:55:08

on Thu Nov 05 2009, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> You'd think reinterpret_cast<> would be
> enough to tell the compiler to back off.  And the 'fixed' code is no
> better or worse.  (I actually find the original version more
> understandable - ie closer to the intent of the code.)  And what if
> the next version of the compiler recognizes the fixed code as bad as
> well?  At some point will it be 'you just can't do that'?
> (P.S. can't you reinterpret_cast references as well? ie
> reinterpret_cast<Storage &> ?)

Why is any Boost code using reinterpret_cast?  There's very little you
can do portably with reinterpret_cast, and IIRC, what little you *can*
do portably can also be done with static_cast.

-- 
Dave Abrahams           Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com