Could somebody who cares about Borland take a look/comment of these two: http://tinyurl.com/5uw9x http://tinyurl.com/6jse9 ? Judging from the errors, they seem like a low-hanging fruit. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> escribió en el mensaje news:m265617c8o.fsf@meta-comm.com...
Could somebody who cares about Borland take a look/comment of these two:
I don't have BCB anymore so I'm just guessing.
Fixed. This one was easy, there was a macro switch for Borland in the header file which was not used in the test file.
Probably fixed too, but I can't tell. The problem is that BCB5.6.4 accepts: short v = 1 ; short& rv = 2 ; int& ri = rv ; // Temporary created here I just changed the "short" for "double" in the hope that being a narrowing conversion it won't do it. Thanks Fernando Cacciola SciSoft
"Fernando Cacciola" wrote:
Probably fixed too, but I can't tell.
The problem is that BCB5.6.4 accepts:
short v = 1 ; short& rv = 2 ; int& ri = rv ; // Temporary created here
I just changed the "short" for "double" in the hope that being a narrowing conversion it won't do it.
Still fails. BCB actually wrongly allows a non const reference to bind to a temporary sometimes and gives a warning (sometimes?) when it does. I tried some simple ways to work it around but it would likely require changes in optional inheritance structure. /Pavel
"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:cj9oi2$cac$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Fernando Cacciola" wrote:
Probably fixed too, but I can't tell.
The problem is that BCB5.6.4 accepts:
short v = 1 ; short& rv = 2 ; int& ri = rv ; // Temporary created here
I just changed the "short" for "double" in the hope that being a
narrowing
conversion it won't do it.
Still fails. BCB actually wrongly allows a non const reference to bind to a temporary sometimes and gives a warning (sometimes?) when it does.
Ouch.
I tried some simple ways to work it around but it would likely require changes in optional inheritance structure.
Oh, well, we can discuss them. Maybe I can put them in _after_ the release. Fernando Cacciola SciSoft
"Fernando Cacciola"wrote:
I tried some simple ways to work it around but it would likely require changes in optional inheritance structure.
Oh, well, we can discuss them. Maybe I can put them in _after_ the release.
I think now the test should be labeled as expected fail. Its question whether to invest time on big changes for oudated compiler for rather rare situation. This problem (+ warning) happened few times for me and it was rather easy to see there's problem with my code. /Pavel
"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:cjb52k$5qp$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Fernando Cacciola"wrote:
I tried some simple ways to work it around but it would likely require changes in optional inheritance structure.
Oh, well, we can discuss them. Maybe I can put them in _after_ the release.
I think now the test should be labeled as expected fail.
Its question whether to invest time on big changes for oudated compiler for rather rare situation. This problem (+ warning) happened few times for me and it was rather easy to see there's problem with my code.
Good point. I'll see how to mark the test as expected to fail (never done that before) Fernando Cacciola SciSoft
participants (3)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
Fernando Cacciola -
Pavel Vozenilek