Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-27 03:31:11

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:44 PM Gavin Lambert via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 27/11/2018 12:05, Peter Dimov wrote:
> > Gavin Lambert wrote:
> >> As an index for a vector or array which cannot have a valid index
> >> below zero, it's perfectly fine.
> >
> > It's not perfectly fine, because you can pass a negative index to it and
> > there's no way to check for that (from within the function). If you take
> > a signed type, you can assert.
> You cannot pass a negative index to it without a warning at the call
> site, so you have to fix it there anyway.

If you have:

void f( unsigned );

void g( int x )

I don't think you'll get a warning. But I might be wrong, so let's say you
do get a warning, so you do:

void g( int x )
  f( static_cast<unsigned>(x) );

How does this help in detecting the logic error of passing a negative x to
g? Can you quantify the exact mechanics by which this cast makes your code
safer? By what measure is the code less safe without the cast?

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