Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 75771
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 10, 20262026-05-10T20:34:06+00:00 2026-05-10T20:34:06+00:00

Following is some obviously-defective code for which I think the compiler should emit a

  • 0

Following is some obviously-defective code for which I think the compiler should emit a diagnostic. But neither gcc nor g++ does, even with all the warnings options I could think of: -pedantic -Wall -Wextra

#include <stdio.h>  short f(short x) {     return x; }  int main() {     long x = 0x10000007;   /* bigger than short */     printf('%d\n', f(x));  /* hoping for a warning here */     return 0; } 

Is there a way to make gcc and g++ warn about this? On a side note, do you have another compiler which warns about this by default or in a fairly common extra-warnings configuration?

Note: I’m using GCC (both C and C++ compilers) version 4.2.4.

Edit: I just found that gcc -Wconversion does the trick, but the same option to g++ doesn’t, and I’m really using C++ here, so I need a solution for g++ (and am now wondering why -Wconversion doesn’t seem to be it).

Edit: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34389 suggests that this may be fixed in g++ 4.4…maybe? It’s not clear to me yet if it’s the same issue and/or if the fix is really coming in that version. Maybe someone with 4.3 or 4.4 can try my test case.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-10T20:34:07+00:00Added an answer on May 10, 2026 at 8:34 pm

    Use -Wconversion — the problem is an implicit cast (conversion) from long x to short when the function f(short x) is called [not printf], and -Wconversion will say something like ‘cast from long to short may alter value’.

    ..

    Edit: just saw your note. -Wconversion results in a warning for me, using g++ 4.3.2 on Linux… (4.3.2-1 on Debian)

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have the following code which obviously has some duplication. I'm sure this could
Hi I am quite new to php but i have been following some tutorials
Today at work we came across the following code (some of you might recognize
I'm considering the following: I have some data stream which I'd like to protect
I noticed for a while now the following syntax in some of our code:
The following code doesn't work as intended but hopefully illustrates my attempt: long foo
I have this .NET regex: ^(?<prefix>([^]*))\s(?<attrgroup>(\([^\)]*\)))\s(?<suffix>([^]*))$ It properly matches the following strings: some prefix
Suppose I have the following code: class some_class{}; some_class some_function() { return some_class(); }
I'm using the following to grab some updated HTML and insert it into a
What is the reason for the following warning in some C++ compilers? No newline

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.