🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8904222123.AA22649@riunite.aca.mcc.com>, rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:
> If you compile the following code with -Wall, you will only get one
> warning to the effect that "structure has no members"  this appears
> to be inconnsistant because neither of the two have any members,
> so there should be *two* warning messages.

I agree that the warnings but also the error messages suffer from a
certain degree of inconnsistency. (Cosmetic though)

We also have:

	foo (int a)
	{
	  int a;
	  //......
	}

	We ought to get a warning that the argument
	is being shadowed! (at least when the -Wall flag is given)
	or is this valid C++?	
also:

	foo ()
	{
	  a=b+b+b+b;
	}

	Don't know if this exact example suffers from the fact, that
	although the error message states that b is to be reported only once
	as undefined it is not. (Inconnsistent?)
	As I haven't got access to g++ on this machine I can't state an
	exact example. As I se this effect regularly it ought to be well known.

and:

	foo()
	{
	  double a;
	  int b;
	  b=a;
	}

	Here we get a warning. This is as it should be as the function is
	ambigous as there exist many ways to map a float to an integer.
	However, one should be able to specify what kind of mapping the
	compiler uses. One could for instance have a flag that indicated
	some handy mapping. If this flag is specified the compiler can
	and should be silent as the mapping no longer is ambigous.

	The two mappings that springs up is rounding and truncating.
	There is a gain connected with the mapping method.
	On a sun3 with FPU there exist two mappings in the FPU, each mapping
	has its own instruction.

	Now, if you need the method that isn't present(rounding) and
	don't want to define a macro to do the job as this is inefficient
	you gotta patch the assembler output. Simply replace the trunc
	instruction with the desired rounding ditto.
	In tight loops the gain can be huge.
	(Ofcourse you can alter the specific line in md,
	 but it is still quite messy)

	Nice if an abillity to choose method was embedded in the compiler!



As stated, the above is cosmetics at this stage of g++........