On Tue, 29 Mar 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> | --- 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.
> | +
On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 10:28, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2021-05-19T13:09:29-0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
> 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 +0
Hi!
On 2021-05-19T13:09:29-0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
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
On 5/20/21 4:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 23:52 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 16:08 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 4:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Oh, also we have https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93769
which points out a problem with the current wo
On 19/05/21 23:52 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 16:08 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 4:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Oh, also we have https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93769
which points out a problem with the current wording. Not a very
important one, but still .
On 20/05/21 12:34 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/20/21 8:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 16:05 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 3:55 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100,
On 20/05/21 11:25 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/20/21 6:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 16:05 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 3:55 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100,
On 5/20/21 6:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 16:05 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 3:55 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd
On 5/20/21 8:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 16:05 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 3:55 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd
On 19/05/21 16:05 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 3:55 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening pare
On 19/05/21 11:51 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/19/21 10:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
On 19/05/21 11:51 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/19/21 10:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
On 19/05/21 16:08 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 4:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 20:55 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out
On 5/19/21 4:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 20:55 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening pa
On 5/19/21 3:55 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch shoul
On 19/05/21 20:55 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tes
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 07:35:20PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 19/05/21 14:03 -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:51:54AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > On 5/19/21 10:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > Jakub pointed out I'd for
On 19/05/21 14:03 -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:51:54AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 5/19/21 10:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
> for function calls. The attached patch
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:51:54AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 5/19/21 10:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
> > for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
> > other cha
On 5/19/21 10:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
Looks good to me, it just needs an update to t
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
Jakub also po
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:
> > > Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
> > > for function ca
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:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tested x86_64-l
On 19/05/21 17:50 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 12:40 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
Thank you for doing this! One thing I'm wondering about, is that I'm
pretty sure clang also allows at least some of these to be used with
plain C as well, for example for things like the old use of "aut
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:39:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
> for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
> other changes.
>
> Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
Nice, this is cool
On 19/05/21 12:40 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
Thank you for doing this! One thing I'm wondering about, is that I'm
pretty sure clang also allows at least some of these to be used with
plain C as well, for example for things like the old use of "auto" in
C conflicting with the newer C++11 meaning
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
Jakub also pointed out we already have some similar diagno
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:33 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> This adds new warning flags, enabled by default: -Wc++11-extensions,
> -Wc++14-extensions, -Wc++17-extensions, and -Wc++20-extensions. The
> names of the flags are copied from Clang, which already has similar
> options.
>
Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens
for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no
other changes.
Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk?
commit a7dc19cdc0c5d3762bb90d12ebd82a05d0013246
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Wed May 19 17:37:00 2021
This adds new warning flags, enabled by default: -Wc++11-extensions,
-Wc++14-extensions, -Wc++17-extensions, and -Wc++20-extensions. The
names of the flags are copied from Clang, which already has similar
options.
No new diagnostics are added, but the new OPT_Wxxx variables are used to
control exi
31 matches
Mail list logo
