On Sat, 9 May 2015, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 05/09/2015 05:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Hmm, I wonder if we want to bootstrap with explicit -std=gnu04, our host
> > compiler requirement. Otherwise we'll silently sneak in C++11 features when
> > that becomes the default?
>
> I think just for s
On 05/11/2015 07:30 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
On 2015.05.08 at 23:30 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
One C++11 compatibility issue that turns up a lot in the GCC sources is
that in C++98,
#define BAR "bar"
const char *p = "foo"BAR;
There was a missing fix for gcc/config/rs6000/option-default
On 2015.05.08 at 23:30 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> One C++11 compatibility issue that turns up a lot in the GCC sources is
> that in C++98,
>
> #define BAR "bar"
> const char *p = "foo"BAR;
There was a missing fix for gcc/config/rs6000/option-defaults.h.
This broke bootstrap on ppc64.
Fix com
On 05/09/2015 05:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Hmm, I wonder if we want to bootstrap with explicit -std=gnu04, our host
compiler requirement. Otherwise we'll silently sneak in C++11 features when
that becomes the default?
I think just for stage 1.
Jason
More patches:
The first makes changing the default just a matter of changing two lines
(in the compiler and testsuite).
The second patch is a minor tidy of c.opt.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 8c9891a3828dc6a4c91998b2437ef9fbf8659163
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri
On 05/09/2015 01:27 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
This also enables the following bogus warning:
~ % g++ -Wall -std=c++11 test.cpp
test.cpp:3:26: warning: ‘>>’ operator is treated as two right angle brackets in
C++11 [-Wc++11-compat]
Fixed thus:
commit 1c492cd18b2869305cc3ee16f84b6464f98
On 2015.05.08 at 23:30 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> One C++11 compatibility issue that turns up a lot in the GCC sources is
> that in C++98,
>
> #define BAR "bar"
> const char *p = "foo"BAR;
>
> is well-formed, giving p the value "foobar". But in C++11 this is a
> user-defined literal with th
On May 9, 2015 6:30:49 AM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill wrote:
>One C++11 compatibility issue that turns up a lot in the GCC sources is
>
>that in C++98,
>
>#define BAR "bar"
>const char *p = "foo"BAR;
>
>is well-formed, giving p the value "foobar". But in C++11 this is a
>user-defined literal with t
