This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 50810 (new try)

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:29:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 50810 (new try)
References: <4EA5503C.7070202@oracle.com> <4EA562E1.6050106@redhat.com> <CAAiZkiDO79-bEPSZKwcidH75byFNjhpGic5uAK87XjGJwD2nqQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/24/2011 09:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jason Merrill<jason@redhat.com> wrote:

No.  I added -Wno-narrowing specifically to suppress the diagnostic in C++0x
mode; see c++/49793.  There are several diagnostics required by standards
that can be suppressed by -Wno- flags, such as -Wno-long-long.


I do not think I follow.  The way we suppress a standard feature is through
a non-W flag.  -Wno-long-long should not have any effect at all in C++11.
It may have an effect in C++03.

Right, -Wno-long-long is only useful in C++03 and C90. But it does in fact suppress a standard diagnostic.

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 50810 (new try)
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- [C++ Patch] PR 50810 (new try)
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 50810 (new try)
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 50810 (new try)
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]