On Sat, 26 May 2018, Will Hawkins wrote:
> > + if (asmspec_tree != NULL_TREE)
> > +{
> > + warning (OPT_Wignored_asm_name, "asm-specifier is ignored in "
> > + "typedef declaration");
> > +}
We avoid braces around a single statement like this.
I don't think diagnostic
Hello everyone!
I know every member of the community is very busy, but I am following
up on this patch to conform to the 'ping' etiquette.
Please let me know what comments you have about this patch and how I
can modify it to make sure that it meets standards.
Thanks for everything that you all d
Hello again!
Thanks to the feedback of Mr. Myers and those on the PR, I have
created a version 3 of this patch. This version introduces a new
warning flag (enabled at Wall) -Wignored-asm-name that will flag cases
where the user specifies an ASM name that the compiler ignores.
Test cases included.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Will Hawkins wrote:
> I agree! It was, however, the closest of all the categories that I
> could find that seemed to match the warning that I am trying to emit.
> I will go back and review the categories and see if there is something
> that I missed.
If there isn't a suitable
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Will Hawkins wrote:
>
>> +{
>> + warning (OPT_Wignored_qualifiers, "asm-specifier is ignored in "
>> + "typedef declaration");
>
> This does not match the documented semantics of -Wignored-qualifiers. I
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Will Hawkins wrote:
> +{
> + warning (OPT_Wignored_qualifiers, "asm-specifier is ignored in "
> + "typedef declaration");
This does not match the documented semantics of -Wignored-qualifiers. I
don't think it's appropriate to expand those semantics to inc
Thanks to Mr. Meyers for his comments. Here is an updated version of
the patch. Test cases are included this time.
Tested with 'make bootstrap' on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Results from make
-k check available upon request.
I hope that this one is better! Thanks again for everyone's patience!
Will
This patch is missing testcases, which need to be added to the testsuite
for any such new feature, and when submitting a patch you should say
explicitly in what configuration it was bootstrapped and tested without
regressions. Also, it's always incorrect to use -Wpedantic as the option
control
