On 11/02/2011 09:11 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I'm checking in this variant of your patch; mostly it just adds
-Wno-narrowing to the warning options used to build GCC, though there
are a few wording tweaks as well.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
Thanks!
Paolo.
I'm checking in this variant of your patch; mostly it just adds
-Wno-narrowing to the warning options used to build GCC, though there
are a few wording tweaks as well.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 6b5380306428a3e618027b3fc7a319ae2c520b35
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: T
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 02:47 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> What about (testcase)
>>
>> int f(char);
>> double f(...);
>>
>> const int n = sizeof f({257});
>>
>> ?
>
> The narrowing conversion would be marked as 'bad' and therefore t
On 10/24/2011 02:47 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
What about (testcase)
int f(char);
double f(...);
const int n = sizeof f({257});
?
The narrowing conversion would be marked as 'bad' and therefore the
second overload chosen. As before, the objective is to only change the
d
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 02:13 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> The problem is with C++11 codes. There is no reason for them to be
>> subjected
>> to the inconsistency, especially for codes in header files that are
>> upgraded (beyond control of the end
On 10/24/2011 02:13 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
yes, but how does the compiler distinguish a "legacy code" compiled
under C++11 from non-legacy C++11 code?
It doesn't.
The problem is with C++11 codes. There is no reason for them to be subjected
to the inconsistency, especially for codes in h
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 01:21 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> So, if you make -Wno-narrowing meaningful in C++11 mode then how can
>> it not affect sfinae (case 1.b.) and still be consistent
On 10/24/2011 01:21 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
So, if you make -Wno-narrowing meaningful in C++11 mode then how can
it not affect sfinae (case 1.b.) and still be consistent with the
other case where a diagnostic is required the expression ac
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 10:39 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, the narrowing semantics also affects SFINAE, not just simple
>> declaration.
>> If we want a flag that can also affect the outcome of overload
>> resolution, it should one of the the
On 10/24/2011 10:39 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Hmm, the narrowing semantics also affects SFINAE, not just simple declaration.
If we want a flag that can also affect the outcome of overload
resolution, it should one of the the -fflags, such as -fpermissive.
I don't want the option to affect SFI
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 09:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> Right, -Wno-long-long is only useful in C++03 and C90. But it does in
>>> fact
>>> suppress a standard diagnostic.
>>
>> a d
On 10/24/2011 09:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Right, -Wno-long-long is only useful in C++03 and C90. But it does in fact
suppress a standard diagnostic.
a diagnostic of an extension :-)
I'm not going to argue semantics any further. W
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 09:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>>> No. I added -Wno-narrowing specifically to suppress the diagnostic in
>>> C++0x
>>> mode; see c++/49793. There are several di
.. just to let you know guys, I'm already unassigned from the PR, but
today I wanted to give it one (actually 3) more try. Given the
controversy, I don't feel like further following the issue, it just
makes me nervous. Eventually, feel free to adjust my patches to your likes.
Paolo.
On 10/24/2011 09:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
No. I added -Wno-narrowing specifically to suppress the diagnostic in C++0x
mode; see c++/49793. There are several diagnostics required by standards
that can be suppressed by -Wno- flags, s
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 07:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
[...]
>> and also, as
>> requested by Gaby, preventing -Wno-narrowing from suppressing the
>> warning in C++0x mode (if the user really needs to silence it,
>> -Wno-c++0x-compat works). I also adde
On 10/24/2011 09:06 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/24/2011 07:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the below is a new variant removing -Wc++0x-compat from -Wall (cannot be
added to -Wextra either because bootstrap passes -W)
I don't understand the rationale for this. If the warning is problematic
for b
On 10/24/2011 07:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the below is a new variant removing -Wc++0x-compat from -Wall (cannot be
added to -Wextra either because bootstrap passes -W)
I don't understand the rationale for this. If the warning is
problematic for bootstrap, why not just add -Wno-narrowing to
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the below is a new variant removing -Wc++0x-compat from -Wall (cannot be
>>> added to -Wextra either because bootstrap passes -W) and also, as
>>> request
On 10/24/2011 02:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
OK with a minor correction. This bit
+With -std=c++0x, @option{-Wno-c++0x-compat} can be used to suppress
+the diagnostic required by the standard.
should not be there. It is currently an accident of implementation
detail as opposed to a feature.
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
the below is a new variant removing -Wc++0x-compat from -Wall (cannot be
added to -Wextra either because bootstrap passes -W) and also, as requested
by Gaby, preventing -Wno-narrowing from suppressing the warning in C++0x
mode (if t
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the below is a new variant removing -Wc++0x-compat from -Wall (cannot be
> added to -Wextra either because bootstrap passes -W) and also, as requested
> by Gaby, preventing -Wno-narrowing from suppressing the warning in C++0x
> mode (
Hi,
the below is a new variant removing -Wc++0x-compat from -Wall (cannot be
added to -Wextra either because bootstrap passes -W) and also, as
requested by Gaby, preventing -Wno-narrowing from suppressing the
warning in C++0x mode (if the user really needs to silence it,
-Wno-c++0x-compat wor
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 04:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> Before the patch, -std=c++0x effectively put off -Wc++0x-compat because we
>> are compiling c++98/c++03 code, so we can only *warn* about possible
>> compatibility conflict with C++11. How
On 10/24/2011 04:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Before the patch, -std=c++0x effectively put off -Wc++0x-compat
because we are compiling c++98/c++03 code, so we can only *warn* about
possible compatibility conflict with C++11. However, the narrowing
diagnostic required by C++11 is NOT a warning
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/24/2011 03:30 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> We do not use -W or -Wno- to suppressed *required* diagnostics. So, when
>> -std=c++0x, -Wno-narrowing should not have any effect.
>
> Personally, I have no problem with this, but
Hi,
On 10/24/2011 03:30 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We do not use -W or -Wno- to suppressed *required* diagnostics. So,
when -std=c++0x, -Wno-narrowing should not have any effect.
Personally, I have no problem with this, but note, I'm not inventing
anything new here, the behavior you are discus
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> ... and the patch ;)
I am bit puzzled by this:
+This flag is included in @option{-Wc++0x-compat}.
+With -std=c++0x, @option{-Wno-narrowing} suppresses the diagnostic
+required by the standard.
and this:
- /* If we're allowing C++0x constr
... and the patch ;)
Paolo.
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/50810
* c-opts.c (c_common_handle_option): Do not enable -Wc++0x-compat
as part of -Wall; handle -Wc++0x-compat.
(c_common_post_options): -std=c++0x enables -Wnarrowing.
Hi,
Personally, I would be in favor of taking -Wc++0x-compat out of -Wall.
Patch pre-approved.
Thanks.
It makes sense though that -Wextra implies -Wc++0x-compat.
Indeed, it would. However, unfortunately, we are using -W to bootstrap
(it just failed on me). Thus I'm bootstrapping and testing
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 11:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Eric Botcazou
>> wrote:
Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
>>>
>>> I have other errors for config/i386/i386.c on
On 10/23/2011 11:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
I have other errors for config/i386/i386.c on my x86-64 machine. But are we
sure that we want to warn on
static unsigned HOS
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
>
> I have other errors for config/i386/i386.c on my x86-64 machine. But are we
> sure that we want to warn on
>
> static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT unknown[4] = { -1, -1, 0, 0 }
> Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
I have other errors for config/i386/i386.c on my x86-64 machine. But are we
sure that we want to warn on
static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT unknown[4] = { -1, -1, 0, 0 };
with -Wall? This seems overly picky to me.
--
Eric Botcaz
On 10/23/2011 10:25 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Oh my, I thought I was till using C here... Ok, I'll fix that.
The base compiler is a C compiler, stage 2/3 are built with the C++ compiler.
Yes, yes. Sorry about this.
Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
Thanks,
Paolo
> Oh my, I thought I was till using C here... Ok, I'll fix that.
The base compiler is a C compiler, stage 2/3 are built with the C++ compiler.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 10/23/2011 10:19 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
So, to be clear, this is for bootstrapping with a C++ compiler, right?
Honestly, didn't try that... It's definitely possible that there are
glitches in the tree wrt -Wnarrowing in C++.
Bootstrapping with the C++ compiler has been the default for month
> So, to be clear, this is for bootstrapping with a C++ compiler, right?
> Honestly, didn't try that... It's definitely possible that there are
> glitches in the tree wrt -Wnarrowing in C++.
Bootstrapping with the C++ compiler has been the default for months...
--
Eric Botcazou
> The code in question is
>
> static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT unknown[4] = { -1, -1, 0, 0 };
>
> This is on amd64-unknown-freebsd8.0, though I am puzzled it does not
> seem to trigger for other 64-bit platforms?
It does trigger on Linux. I guess the patch wasn't bootstrapped.
There is another pr
On 10/23/2011 10:07 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Is it possible that this is responsible for a bootstrap failure introduced
in the last 27 hours or so?
/scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/tree-object-size.c:44:59: error: narrowing
conversion of '-0x1' from 'int' to 'long unsigned int'
Is it possible that this is responsible for a bootstrap failure introduced
in the last 27 hours or so?
/scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/tree-object-size.c:44:59: error: narrowing
conversion of '-0x1' from 'int' to 'long unsigned int' inside {
} [-Werror=narrowing]
/scratch/tmp/g
On 10/23/2011 11:00 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+With -std=c++0x, @option{-Wno-narrowing} suppresses the diagnostic
+required by the standard. This flag is included in @option{-Wall} and
+@option{-Wc++0x-compat}.
I'd swap those two sentences. OK with that change.
Jason
Hi,
On 10/23/2011 07:23 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
-@item -Wno-narrowing @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)}
+@item -Wnarrowing @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)}
@opindex Wnarrowing
@opindex Wno-narrowing
-With -std=c++0x, suppress the diagnostic required by the standard for
-narrowing conversions w
On 10/23/2011 07:23 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
-@item -Wno-narrowing @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)}
+@item -Wnarrowing @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)}
@opindex Wnarrowing
@opindex Wno-narrowing
-With -std=c++0x, suppress the diagnostic required by the standard for
-narrowing conversions within
Hi,
this is essentially about enabling -Wnarrowing as part of -Wc++0x-compat
(see audit trail for details). Tested x86_64-linux.
Ok for mainline?
Thanks,
Paolo.
/
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/50810
* c-opts.c (c_common_handle_option): Enab
45 matches
Mail list logo
