This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: libstdc++ test case ext/headers.cc failed on arm-none-eabi
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:15:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: libstdc++ test case ext/headers.cc failed on arm-none-eabi
- References: <CAHFci282xzqC07Nu03Az+VuwOjm2b3gzDr4Oty-OBW6NKa5ekg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdSqQmRcY8ZXKzQSHAm0+K6N9ztqmj7-o8pdNBG8WvT3NA at mail dot gmail dot com> <52022AA0 dot 4030601 at redhat dot com> <CAH6eHdQ1WPFQu2kQ2U8OWFk7A8AvvSRf6fj11Xb9oREge+YBVA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdRWHPcMiHR6wrOFh4RvazkNDyhqchbcUPjyqeg5=bi17Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQ97ZCG=sYCHvV58TvuBGwpNokKXBegc8POFnPNwY2GwA at mail dot gmail dot com> <52023215 dot 7090203 at oracle dot com> <CAHFci29rcXiGuDGTSu+5Tz4-XVK0DdZJLn_kmY0cNK1xfbkkXQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 7 August 2013 14:34, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
> Thanks all of you for helping.
> Since I know little about c++, here comes more questions:
>
> 1) for the warning message:
> g.h:2:14: warning: non-static data member initializers only available
> with -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11 [enabled by default]
> #define INIT 0
> ^
> What does the "[enabled by default]" mean? If "-std=gnu++11" is
> enabled by default, why gcc gives this warning message then?
It means the warning is enabled by default, not -std=gnu++11 is
enabled by default. That's nothing to do with C++, it's how GCC
displays warnings.
> 2) The case works for x86 regression test, could this be a target (or
> target testing setup) specific problem? What kind of imformation
> should I provide to identify the issue?
It seems to depend on the 'single' thread model, i.e. gthr-single.h
> 3) According to the explanation, this possibly reveals two issues, one
> for the warning message itself, and the other for the inaccurate
> warning message, right?
There's an existing PR for the innacurate diagnostic.