This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Is C++11 to be default for GCC 4.9?
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc-help <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Lars HagstrÃm <lars at foldspace dot nu>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:42:59 +0000
- Subject: Re: Is C++11 to be default for GCC 4.9?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CABUYEh9Rvwg7mu1GfP8bCoGveSR=UDpxd2QSBH8fr_6bPArzcg at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1401241021120 dot 3643 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <8738kak9a3 dot fsf at talisman dot default>
On 26 January 2014 16:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I can definitely sympathise with reading the message the other way though.
> If that's the only output you see, the natural assumption is that the
> "enabled by default" applies to the thing just before it.
> Any objections to changing it to "this warning is enabled by default"
> or "warning enabled by default"? Or is that too verbose?
The former seems far too verbose to me, I could live with the latter
(even though it's only a few characters shorter!)