On Wednesday, July 3, 2013, Richard Smith wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Kim Gräsman > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > 1) Is -Wgnu really the right warning group for this? I'm not up to > > speed on what -Wgnu means, is it to warn that this is a GNU extension? > > Yes, that's what -Wgnu means.
OK, thanks. > > > 2) Should this warning be active for -std=c++98 or only -std=c++11? I > > get the diagnostic in both modes. > > It should be active in both modes. This code has never been valid. That's exactly the kind of motivation I was looking for. If the code is undeniably invalid, we might want to reconsider handling these duplicates at all. > 3) Other compilers (GCC, MSVC) seem to accept it, so I think I want to > > keep our current behavior until this is considered illegal by > > everyone. Is my best bet just to disable the warning to let Clang Sema > > accept this? > > Sure. If you want to disable just this one warning but keep the rest > of -Wgnu enabled, please provide a patch adding a separate warning > flag for this one warning (as a member of the -Wgnu group). > Excellent, I was looking for something more fine-grained. I'll see what I can do. Thank you, - Kim
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
