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

[Bernd Edlinger]

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?


Thanks
Bernd.