[C++ PATCH] Fix option handling when -std=gnu++14 is not used (PR 69865)

Jason Merrill jason@redhat.com
Fri Feb 19 19:47:00 GMT 2016


On 02/19/2016 02:37 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 19.02.2016 17:03, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 02/19/2016 10:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> +  flag_isoc94 = 0;
>>> +  flag_isoc99 = 0;
>>
>> Why?  These flags are global variables, so they're already
>> zero-initialized.
>>
>> Otherwise the changes look good to me.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> This hunk is really needed.
>
> I can prove it:
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c	(revision 233557)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c	(working copy)
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>    /* PR c/65179 */
>    /* { dg-do compile } */
>    /* { dg-options "-O -Wextra" } */
> -/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c++03" { target c++ } } */
> +/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c++11 -std=c++03" { target c++ } } */
>    /* { dg-additional-options "-std=c90" { target c } } */
>
>    enum E {
>
>
> unpatched gcc gives:
>
>                   === g++ tests ===
>
>
> Running target unix
> FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c    (test for bogus
> messages, line 10)
> FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c    (test for bogus
> messages, line 26)
> FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c    (test for bogus
> messages, line 29)
>
>
> Would you like me to commit the above test case change together with
> both parts of the patch?
>
> Do you think the patch is OK now?

OK.

Jason




More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list