This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: long long constants and -Wno-long-long
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at acm dot org>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: long long constants and -Wno-long-long
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 23:01:45 -0600
- cc: egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <35EBAAF9.7DA6@acm.org>you write:
> > I think this is wrong. If I'm in pedantic mode, I want to know about
> > *everything* that is not 100% by the book. I'm not aware of any case
> > where a -Wno-* flag disables a pedantic warning/error.
> With G++ extensions other than long long, there is an alternative
> keyword (__extension__ etc). These can continue to be used with
> -pedantic and don't give warnings.
Right. I'm not sure that's correct either since that "feature" makes
it impossible to find certain code which is non-portable, which is
one of the purposes behind -pedantic.
But I'm not going to even start down that path :-)
> The trouble is, there is no such alternative spelling of 'long long'.
Yup. This came up with Vlad was originally trying to determine what
to do about a user that wanted warnings for uses of long long that
could be enabled/disabled individually.
> doesn't occur for the other extensions. The -Wno-long-long has been
> added to get round this problem and allow you to check your code for
> Arguably, a more consistent way
> would have been to add a different spelling of 'long long', just like
> the other extensions. But I was not involved in adding that flag. The
Well, I thought it was wrong then, and I still do, but I'm not going
to argue over it anymore. Particularly since I seem to be in the
singular minority :-)
I'll install the patch momentarily.