On 20/04/17 17:33 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:22:00PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:09:20PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> --- a/gcc/cp/init.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.c
> @@ -3128,11 +3128,14 @@ build_new_1 (vec<tree, va_gc> **placement, tree type,
tree nelts,
> {
> warning (OPT_Waligned_new_, "%<new%> of type %qT with extended "
> "alignment %d", elt_type, TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (elt_type));
> - inform (input_location, "uses %qD, which does not have an alignment "
> - "parameter", alloc_fn);
> - if (!aligned_new_threshold)
> - inform (input_location, "use %<-faligned-new%> to enable C++17 "
> - "over-aligned new support");
> + if (diagnostic_report_warnings_p (global_dc, input_location))
> + {
> + inform (input_location, "uses %qD, which does not have an alignment "
> + "parameter", alloc_fn);
> + if (!aligned_new_threshold)
> + inform (input_location, "use %<-faligned-new%> to enable C++17 "
> + "over-aligned new support");
> + }
This looks weird. I'd expect instead:
if (warning (OPT_Waligned_new_, "%<new%> of type %qT with extended "
"alignment %d", elt_type, TYPE_ALIGN_UNIT (elt_type)))
{
inform (input_location, "uses %qD, which does not have an alignment "
"parameter", alloc_fn);
if (!aligned_new_threshold)
inform (input_location, "use %<-faligned-new%> to enable C++17 "
"over-aligned new support");
}
That is a standard idiom used if some inform or later warning/error depends
on whether earlier warning/error has been diagnosed.
Yes.
If that works, this is ok for trunk and 7.1 (we don't have a rc1 yet, it is
ok now).
One more thing, the test passes even without the patch. Did you mean to add
// { dg-options "-Wall -w" }
?
Good catch. My original testcase used <type_traits> but I changed it
to not depend on the library, and didn't fix the dg-options.
