On 09/21/2015 12:39 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 09/21/15 12:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/21/2015 10:01 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 21 September 2015 at 15:46, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
FWIW, we could make this plugin in 2 weeks (w already have static
checkers as plugins for our customers
On 09/21/15 12:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/21/2015 10:01 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 21 September 2015 at 15:46, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
FWIW, we could make this plugin in 2 weeks (w already have static
checkers as plugins for our customers). I understand Nathan that you
may have some d
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 10:01 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>> On 21 September 2015 at 15:46, Daniel Gutson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, we could make this plugin in 2 weeks (w already have static
>>> checkers as plugins for our customers). I under
On 09/21/2015 10:01 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 21 September 2015 at 15:46, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
FWIW, we could make this plugin in 2 weeks (w already have static
checkers as plugins for our customers). I understand Nathan that you
may have some deadlines, but if we could have the opport
On 21 September 2015 at 15:46, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
>
> FWIW, we could make this plugin in 2 weeks (w already have static
> checkers as plugins for our customers). I understand Nathan that you
> may have some deadlines, but if we could have the opportunity to
> implement it, we could accomplish a
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 09/15/2015 01:20 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>> On 15/09/15 15:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Jason,
somme of our customers have 'interesting' C++ coding rules
>>>+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
>>>+warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inheritance,
>>>+ "%qT defined with multiple direct bases", ref);
>>You don't need to guard the warning with a check of the warning flag; warning
>>will only give the warning if the option is enabled.
>the spelling
On 09/16/15 10:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/16/2015 08:02 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
+warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inheritance,
+ "%qT defined with multiple direct bases", ref);
You don't need to guard the warning with a check of the warning fl
On September 16, 2015 6:32:46 PM GMT+02:00, "Manuel López-Ibáñez"
wrote:
>On 16/09/15 16:36, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> On 09/16/15 10:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On 09/16/2015 08:02 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
+warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inherita
On 16/09/15 16:36, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 09/16/15 10:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/16/2015 08:02 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
+warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inheritance,
+ "%qT defined with multiple direct bases", ref);
You don't need to guard
On 09/16/15 10:23, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/16/2015 08:02 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
+warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inheritance,
+ "%qT defined with multiple direct bases", ref);
You don't need to guard the warning with a check of the warning fl
On 09/16/2015 08:02 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
+ else if (warn_multiple_inheritance)
+ warning (OPT_Wmultiple_inheritance,
+"%qT defined with multiple direct bases", ref);
You don't need to guard the warning with a check of the warning flag;
warning will only give the
On 09/15/15 09:33, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/15/2015 09:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Wouldn't warning flags be better so you can decide whether it's an error
or a warning via -Werror=virtual-inheritance vs. -Wvirtual-inheritance?
Yep. That also handles the system header exemption (unless -Ws
On 09/15/2015 01:20 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 15/09/15 15:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Jason,
somme of our customers have 'interesting' C++ coding rules, they'd
like to
have the compiler enforced. They want to disable:
1) namespace
On 15/09/15 15:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Jason,
somme of our customers have 'interesting' C++ coding rules, they'd like to
have the compiler enforced. They want to disable:
1) namespace definitions
2) template declarations
3) multiple inh
On 09/15/2015 09:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Wouldn't warning flags be better so you can decide whether it's an error
or a warning via -Werror=virtual-inheritance vs. -Wvirtual-inheritance?
Yep. That also handles the system header exemption (unless
-Wsystem-headers).
Jason
On 09/15/15 09:26, Richard Biener wrote:
Wouldn't warning flags be better so you can decide whether it's an error
or a warning via -Werror=virtual-inheritance vs. -Wvirtual-inheritance?
I agree. I didn't know of the -Werror=FOO trick to make them individually
errors.
nathan
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Jason,
> somme of our customers have 'interesting' C++ coding rules, they'd like to
> have the compiler enforced. They want to disable:
>
> 1) namespace definitions
> 2) template declarations
> 3) multiple inheritance
> 4) virtual inheritan
Jason,
somme of our customers have 'interesting' C++ coding rules, they'd like to have
the compiler enforced. They want to disable:
1) namespace definitions
2) template declarations
3) multiple inheritance
4) virtual inheritance
But they want to use the STL. This patch implements 4 new flags
19 matches
Mail list logo
