OK.
Jason
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:09:38AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> In that case, we need to return (!flag_permissive || ctx->quiet).
Thanks. So is this one ok once it passes testing?
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-01-12 Marek Polacek
PR c++/68979
*
On 01/12/2016 09:05 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 08:27:47AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
Changing the diagnostic is OK, but cxx_eval_check_shift_p should return true
regardless of flag_permissive, so that SFINAE results follow the standard.
There's a complication, because if
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 08:27:47AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Changing the diagnostic is OK, but cxx_eval_check_shift_p should return true
> regardless of flag_permissive, so that SFINAE results follow the standard.
There's a complication, because if I keep returning true, we'll give a
compile-
Changing the diagnostic is OK, but cxx_eval_check_shift_p should return
true regardless of flag_permissive, so that SFINAE results follow the
standard.
Jason
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:02:16PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/permissive-1.C
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/permissive-1.C
> > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> > +// PR c++/68979
> > +// { dg-do compile }
> > +/
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:52:01PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/permissive-1.C
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/permissive-1.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> +// PR c++/68979
> +// { dg-do compile }
> +// { dg-options "-fpermissive -Wno-shift-overflow -Wno-shift-count-overflow
>
Seems that people find compile-time error on the following testcase overly
pedantic. I.e. that "enum A { X = -1 << 1 };" should compile, at least with
-fpermissive. So I've changed the error_at into permerror and the return value
of cxx_eval_check_shift_p now depends on flag_permissive. Luckily,
