On 08/10/2016 04:06 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
===
--- gcc/doc/invoke.texi (revision 239276)
+++ gcc/doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -4914,6 +4914,12 @@
construct, known from C++, was introduced with ISO C99 and is by default
al
On 10/08/2016 17:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> There are indeed many pedwarn(loc, 0, ...) occurrences in C++ (most, but
>> not all, are "foo only available with -std=bar" which in the C front-end
>> would use OPT_Wpedantic, OPT_W*compat be enabled by sp
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> There are indeed many pedwarn(loc, 0, ...) occurrences in C++ (most, but
> not all, are "foo only available with -std=bar" which in the C front-end
> would use OPT_Wpedantic, OPT_W*compat be enabled by specific flags such
> as -Wvariadic-macros). In C I
On 10/08/2016 17:33, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> - stuff that is not enabled by anything should use OPT_Wpedantic, and
>
> No, lots of pedwarns are for usages that are (a) dubious enough we want to
> diagnose them by default, and (b) required to be diag
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> - stuff that is not enabled by anything should use OPT_Wpedantic, and
No, lots of pedwarns are for usages that are (a) dubious enough we want to
diagnose them by default, and (b) required to be diagnosed by ISO C so
must become errors with -pedantic-e
On 10/08/2016 17:24, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Perhaps we need something like -Wextra-pedantic, for things that are
> undefined by ISO C but defined by GNU. Thus, they would not trigger
> pedwarns and no error with -pedantic-errors.
I think this is overengineering it a bit. If they are annoy
On 10 August 2016 at 15:44, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 10/08/2016 16:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> > > My only fear is that people not using -Wpedantic nor -pedantic-errors
>> > > expect that GNU extensions work. This is a GNU extension that defines
>> > > something that is undefined accord
On 10/08/2016 16:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > > My only fear is that people not using -Wpedantic nor -pedantic-errors
> > > expect that GNU extensions work. This is a GNU extension that defines
> > > something that is undefined according to ISO. Enabling the warning
> > > with -Wextra is ju
On 10 August 2016 at 13:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 10/08/2016 13:31, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> My only fear is that people not using -Wpedantic nor -pedantic-errors
>> expect that GNU extensions work. This is a GNU extension that defines
>> something that is undefined according to ISO.
On 10/08/2016 13:31, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> My only fear is that people not using -Wpedantic nor -pedantic-errors
> expect that GNU extensions work. This is a GNU extension that defines
> something that is undefined according to ISO. Enabling the warning
> with -Wextra is just annoying thos
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Thus, my opinion is that the current definition of -Wpedantic is too
> restrictive and it should contain the "in some cases where there is
> undefined behavior at compile-time". And thus, this should be a
Yes, it should.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos..
On 10 August 2016 at 11:06, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> While I disagree with their inclusion of the warning to -Wall, I think
> it is a good addition overall. First, it is a logical extension of the
> existing warning for breaking defined across a macro and its caller.
> Second, it is good to make th
12 matches
Mail list logo
