Re: PR c/c++/diagnostics/66098 Take -Werror into account when deciding what was the command-line status

[Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>]

PING^2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02581.html

On 3 August 2015 at 20:47, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02581.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> Manuel.
>
> On 30 July 2015 at 17:35, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When I fixed PR59304, I forgot that a command-line warning can be also
>> an error if -Werror was enabled. This introduced a regression since
>> anything enabled in the command-line together with -Werror would get
>> initially classified as a warning when reaching the first #pragma GCC
>> diagnostic, and this will be the setting after a #pragma pop.
>>
>> Options that appear as arguments of -W[no-]error= are not affected by
>> this since those are initially classified as errors/warnings even
>> before reaching the first #pragma, thus the pop sets them correctly
>> (before and after this patch). Nonetheless, the tests also check that
>> they work correctly.
>>
>> Boot&regtested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
>>
>> OK?
>>
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2015-07-29  Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
>>
>>     PR c/66098
>>     PR c/66711
>>     * diagnostic.c (diagnostic_classify_diagnostic): Take -Werror into
>>     account when deciding what was the command-line status.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2015-07-29  Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
>>
>>     PR c/66098
>>     PR c/66711
>>     * gcc.dg/pragma-diag-3.c: New test.
>>     * gcc.dg/pragma-diag-4.c: New test.