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: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org, Lars HagstrÃm <lars at foldspace dot nu>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org >> GCC" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, rdsandiford at googlemail dot com
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:09:08 +0100
- 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 01/26/2014 05:17 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Marc Glisse <email@example.com> writes:
I got an error that implies that "auto" is not usable, which would
mean that C++11 is not enabled, but I also got a warning that implied
that gnu++11 is "enabled by default".
error: âxdirâ does not name a type
warning: non-static data member initializers only available with
-std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11 [enabled by default]
Or does the "enabled by default" bit mean something other than I think
It is the warning that is enabled by default (in other messages you would
see [-Wunused] or [-Wformat] etc to tell you which option controls this
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?
We should show the flag that enables the warning, so that users can use
the -Wno- variant to disable it if they want. Or does "enabled by
default" mean that no such -Wno- flag exists?
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team