On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 10:28, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Hi! > > On 2021-05-19T13:09:29-0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On 19/05/21 12:53 -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > >> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:39:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via > >> > Gcc-patches wrote: > >> > > --- a/gcc/c-family/c.opt > >> > > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c.opt > > >> > > +Wc++11-extensions > >> > > +C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_cxx11_extensions) Warning LangEnabledBy(C++ > >> > > ObjC++,Wall) Init(1) > >> > > +Warn about C++11 constructs in code compiled with an older standard. > >> > > + > >> > > +[Etc.] > > >> > So these are enabled by -Wall but also turned on by default? Let's > >> > choose one > >> > and then drop either the Init(1) or the LangEnabledBy(C++ ObjC++,Wall) > >> > part? > >> > >> Ah, good point. I mostly just cargo-cult what I see in that file (is > >> the format documented somewhere?) > > > > doc/options.texi I think. > > Correct. > > >> I think to preserve the current behaviour (using these constructs in > >> an unsupported dialect warns by default) we want them to be Init(1) > >> but not in -Wall. [...] > > What you pushed in commit ee336ecb2a7161bc28f6c5343d97870a8d15e177 > "c++: Add new warning options for C++ language mismatches" then had the > new options defined as follows; specifying 'LangEnabledBy(C++ ObjC++)' > instead of originally-posted 'LangEnabledBy(C++ ObjC++,Wall)': > > | --- gcc/c-family/c.opt > | +++ gcc/c-family/c.opt > | [...] > | +Wc++11-extensions > | +C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_cxx11_extensions) Warning LangEnabledBy(C++ ObjC++) > Init(1) > | +Warn about C++11 constructs in code compiled with an older standard. > | + > | +[Etc.] > > OK to push the attached "options, '-Wc++[...]-extensions': > Remove undefined one-argument 'LangEnabledBy' option properties"?
I can't approve it, but no objections from me.
