Re: [C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-22 Thread Jason Merrill
On 12/18/2014 12:55 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Thanks. I'm attaching what I just committed. This is a regression, I suppose the patch is ok for 4_9-branch too, right? Yes. Jason

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-18 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 12/18/2014 06:21 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 12/18/2014 11:31 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: + warning_sentinel s (extra_warnings); Let's add a comment about which warning we're avoiding here. OK with that change. Thanks. I'm attaching what I just committed. This is a regression, I s

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-18 Thread Jason Merrill
On 12/18/2014 11:31 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: + warning_sentinel s (extra_warnings); Let's add a comment about which warning we're avoiding here. OK with that change. Jason

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-18 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 12/18/2014 03:20 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 12/18/2014 06:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Sure. The below uses the c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings mechanism and passes testing. I wondered if in such cases we could alternately use the warning_sentinel mechanism (moved to cp-tree.h of course) ?

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-18 Thread Jason Merrill
On 12/18/2014 06:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Sure. The below uses the c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings mechanism and passes testing. I wondered if in such cases we could alternately use the warning_sentinel mechanism (moved to cp-tree.h of course) ? That would make sense to me. Jason

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-18 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 12/17/2014 09:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: I'm uncomfortable with setting TREE_NO_WARNING on a decl just because we don't want a warning for one particular use of it. How about suppressing warnings across the call to build_static_cast? Sure. The below uses the c_inhibit_evaluation_warnin

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-17 Thread Jason Merrill
I'm uncomfortable with setting TREE_NO_WARNING on a decl just because we don't want a warning for one particular use of it. How about suppressing warnings across the call to build_static_cast? Jason

[Ping][C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-17 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, gently pinging this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00961.html On 12/10/2014 08:24 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, this regression, a spurious warning about taking the address of a register parameter, happens in C++14 mode due to the use of force_paren_expr, called by

[C++ Patch] PR 60955

2014-12-10 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, this regression, a spurious warning about taking the address of a register parameter, happens in C++14 mode due to the use of force_paren_expr, called by finish_parenthesized_expr, which ends up calling build_static_cast. Manuel mentioned in the audit trail that TREE_NO_WARNING can be use