Hi,
2012/1/7 Gerald Pfeifer :
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>> As previously announced, here is a patch that deprecate access
>> declarations . I did a little tour in the GCC museum old-deja --and in
>> g++.dg as well -- to disinter and adjust those dusty tests. To avoid
>> false posi
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011, Fabien Chêne wrote:
> As previously announced, here is a patch that deprecate access
> declarations . I did a little tour in the GCC museum old-deja --and in
> g++.dg as well -- to disinter and adjust those dusty tests. To avoid
> false positive on invalid code, I have decided
On Dec 31, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/30/2011 04:34 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> So, I'm wondering why it was done this way originally:
>>
>> - static int S1; // ERROR - uses same name 9.3
>> + static int S1; // { dg-error "" } uses same name 9.3
>>
>
On 12/30/2011 04:34 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
So, I'm wondering why it was done this way originally:
- static int S1; // ERROR - uses same name 9.3
+ static int S1; // { dg-error "" } uses same name 9.3
and not:
- static int S1; // ERROR - uses same nam
On Dec 30, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
> 2011/12/30 Jason Merrill :
>> Why // { dg-warning "" } deprecated on some tests, and
>> // { dg-warning "deprecated" } on others? I would think all of the could
>> use the second form.
>
> I was believing that "// { dg-warning "" } deprecated" w
2011/12/30 Jason Merrill :
> Why // { dg-warning "" } deprecated on some tests, and
> // { dg-warning "deprecated" } on others? I would think all of the could
> use the second form.
I was believing that "// { dg-warning "" } deprecated" was the way to
test a warning in old-deja. If we can use the
Why // { dg-warning "" } deprecated on some tests, and
// { dg-warning "deprecated" } on others? I would think all of the
could use the second form.
+ cp_token *diag_token;
Let's initialize this to NULL to make sure we avoid spurious warnings
about it being used without being set.
OK wi
Hi,
As previously announced, here is a patch that deprecate access
declarations . I did a little tour in the GCC museum old-deja --and in
g++.dg as well -- to disinter and adjust those dusty tests. To avoid
false positive on invalid code, I have decided to only emit the
warning if the access decla
