Boost logo

Boost :

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 <> 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:
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at