This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: PATCH: long long constants and -Wno-long-long

  In message <>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.


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