This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Is C++11 to be default for GCC 4.9?
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Lars HagstrÃm <lars at foldspace dot nu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 16:17:08 +0000
- Subject: Re: Is C++11 to be default for GCC 4.9?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CABUYEh9Rvwg7mu1GfP8bCoGveSR=UDpxd2QSBH8fr_6bPArzcg at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1401241021120 dot 3643 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> writes:
>> I got an error that implies that "auto" is not usable, which would
>> mean that C++11 is not enabled, but I also got a warning that implied
>> that gnu++11 is "enabled by default".
>>
>>> error: âxdirâ does not name a type
>>
>>> warning: non-static data member initializers only available with
>>> -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11 [enabled by default]
>>
>> Or does the "enabled by default" bit mean something other than I think
>> it means?
>
> It is the warning that is enabled by default (in other messages you would
> see [-Wunused] or [-Wformat] etc to tell you which option controls this
> warning).
I can definitely sympathise with reading the message the other way though.
If that's the only output you see, the natural assumption is that the
"enabled by default" applies to the thing just before it.
Any objections to changing it to "this warning is enabled by default"
or "warning enabled by default"? Or is that too verbose?
Thanks,
Richard