On 09/30/2016 01:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 01:08:19PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/30/2016 11:05 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+ permerror (input_location, "ISO C++11 only allows pointer "
+ "conversions for integer literals");
FWIW, I think it would be clearer to either mention the currently
selected language version or leave it out completely rather than
hardcoding C++11. When the user specifies -std=c++14 (or later),
or when that's the current version used by the compiler, a warning
that tells them what C++ 11 allows isn't really relevant (or
meaningful), and becomes less so as time goes on.
Btw., I realize there are other instances where the C++ version
has been hardcoded and so I should have made it clear that I meant
my comment as a general suggestion, not as an objection to the patch.
Sorry if that wasn't apparent.
I've quickly surveyed some of the existing messages that mention
a C++ version and found instances where it applies only to the
referenced version of the standard and prior but not later versions. For
example:
msgid "in C++98 %q+D may not be static because it is a member of a union"
msgid "in C++03 a class-key must be used when declaring a friend"
But I also came across another form that may resolve the concern
I raised: mentioning the version along with whether it's the first
or last that supports (or doesn't support) the construct, such as
"C++11 and above." Here's one example of it:
msgid "in C++11 and above a default constructor can be explicit"
It might be worth to come up with a convention to adopt in new
messages and (gradually) change what's already there to use it.
Maybe, no strong opinions, I'll just go with whatever people prefer here.
Though I guess I like those explicit versions because you know when a
particular thing changed. And when you're using -std=c++14 and the
compiler says C++11, I think that's ok, because C++14 implies C++11.
I agree that mentioning the (first or last) version can be helpful.
Does adopting the "C++11 and later" and "C++11 and earlier" phrasing
sound good then? If no one objects I'll add it to the Guidelines for
C/C++ FE diagnostics on the Wiki.
(I changed "above" to "later" because it pairs better with "earlier"
than "below" would , and because it seems to be more natural when
referring to the year the version a standard was ratified.)
Martin
