Re: Patch for `LL' warnings in insn-*.c

[Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>]

Zack Weinberg wrote:-

> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:06:40AM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > 
> > > That particular warning comes from cpplib, which is not currently
> > > aware of __extension__ since it treats each token in isolation.
> > 
> > That is something that needs fixing somehow, at least for the warning for
> > imaginary constants, since at present the following (compiled with
> > -std=c99 -pedantic on a glibc system) shows a regression between 3.1 and
> > mainline (since <complex.h> uses __extension__ in the definition of I to
> > avoid warnings).
> 
> This should be covered by the rule that warnings do not issue from the
> use of a macro defined in a system header.  If that isn't currently
> true, it will be much easier to fix the regression thus than by
> teaching cpplib about __extension__, which would entail cpp knowing
> the extent of "the expression which follows" - only the parser knows
> that.

This would be solved when we get cpplib to use the front ends'
diagnostic printers.  However, for the same reason, it could then
start suppressing warnings we don't want suppressed, for example
in intervening #if's.

Neil.