On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 03:41:53PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/13/24 14:43, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:38:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 02:24:11PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > Sadly, I must admit this is looking like GCC 15 material.
> > >
> > > If deferred for GCC 15, can't we at least do some minimal
> > > change and just guard the member pedwarn with cxx_dialect < something?
> >
> > I could do something like that, but...
> >
> > > Given that -Wextra-semi isn't on by default nor included in
> > > -Wall -W, I think even accepting this for GCC 14 wouldn't be that
> > > risky.
> >
> > ...I also don't think it's that risky but technically, it's not
> > a regression I think.
> > > Jason's decision.
> > >
> > > + /* If -Wextra-semi wasn't specified, warn only when -pedantic is in
> > > + effect in C++11 and below. DR 1693 added "empty-declaration" to
> > > the
> > > + syntax for "member-declaration". */
> > > + else if (pedantic && cxx_dialect < cxx14)
> > >
> > > If it was a DR, did it apply just to C++14 or changed C++11 as well?
> >
> > It's got Status: C++14 so I thought that C++11/C++98 had not been
> > adjusted.
>
> That's just the timeframe it was accepted in; below that it says "moved to
> DR" which usually means it applies to earlier standards, whereas "accepted"
> or "applied to WP" do not.
>
> For 14 let's go with the minimal change Jakub suggests.
Okay. Do we want to pedwarn about the extra ; here
struct S {
int a;;
};
only in C++98 or C++11 too?
Marek
