http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-04-04
10:38:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Manuel, I'm adding the LangEnabledBy, to match the documentation. Thanks.
>
> Now, I'm not sure to understand the existing lines (many):
>
> ped
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-04
10:12:11 UTC ---
Manuel, I'm adding the LangEnabledBy, to match the documentation. Thanks.
Now, I'm not sure to understand the existing lines (many):
pedantic ? OPT_Wpedantic : OPT_Wpoint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
13:49:08 UTC ---
Excellent. I have a patch in testing.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill 2013-04-03
13:45:57 UTC ---
void arithmetic is a deliberate GNU extension, so it should be a pedwarn rather
than permerror.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
12:18:37 UTC ---
Ok, let's handle that separately.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-04-03
12:12:15 UTC ---
BTW, I also see that in c-family/c.opt -Wpointer-arith is not LangEnabledBy(C
ObjC C++ ObjC++,Wpedantic). If it was, then -Werror=pedantic will automatically
handle -Werror=poi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
11:57:37 UTC ---
I see. Thus I guess I will test & send both versions, pedwarn to permerror in
c-common.c and permerror to pedwarn in the C++ front-end.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-04-03
11:53:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Ok Manuel, thanks. I'm not completely convinced by the
>
> else if ((pedantic || warn_pointer_arith)
>
> which is protecting the permerrors (a -W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
11:50:27 UTC ---
Sorry, I meant p += 1 and avoid p++. You got the point.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
11:35:55 UTC ---
In that case we can have a pedwarn instead of a permerror in the C++ front-end
and restore some consistency.
Still I find weird that those people in the wild currently must a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2013-04-03
09:40:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> In practice the warning (a pedwarn) is emitted by code shared with the C
> front-end, the error (a permerror, thus with -fpermissive it can be demoted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
__vic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #6 from Chung-Ju Wu 2013-04-03
07:33:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > From gcc manpage, the option '-std=' specifies base standard and
> > accept some GNU extensions that do not contradict it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #5 from __vic 2013-04-03 06:24:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> From gcc manpage, the option '-std=' specifies base standard and
> accept some GNU extensions that do not contradict it.
>
> If you would like to issue warn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
Chung-Ju Wu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jasonwucj at gmail dot com
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #3 from __vic 2013-04-02 17:10:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> void* arithmetic is a GCC extension.
But why my examples are treated differently?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-02
17:04:31 UTC ---
Use -pedantic-errors if you want to have rejected invalid standard C++ code.
void* arithmetic is a GCC extension.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56815
--- Comment #1 from __vic 2013-04-02 17:00:23 UTC ---
Slightly modified:
int main()
{
void *p = 0;
p++;
}
$ gcc -std=c++98 source.cpp
source.cpp:4:6: error: arithmetic on a pointer to void
p++;
~^
23 matches
Mail list logo
