On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Ronan Keryell <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:53:07 +0300, Dmitri Gribenko
>> >>>>>> <[email protected]> said:
>> >
>> > Dmitri> The rationale for my change is that if one has some C++ code
>> > Dmitri> that is being compiled in C++98 mode, offering C99 isn't of
>> > Dmitri> much help, since most C++ features are not C99-compatible.
>> >
>> > Yes, I understand.
>> >
>> > I was just thinking also to the poor lost guys that use the C++ compiler
>> > to compile their C code... :-)
>> >
>> > That sounds crazy but this happens.
>>
>> This is an interesting viewpoint, but it should be applied
>> consistently to all our diagnostics. I don't think that we aim to
>> educate the programmer with diagnostics.
>>
>> Although we have to admit that there are programmers who learn
>> language features by playing with their implementation in a particular
>> compiler.
>
>
> This patch matches our current approach for features which are extensions in
> both C99 and C++11, and I don't see a compelling reason to change that
> approach. LGTM, though it saddens me that we have so many different places
> issuing the same trio of diagnostics.
I'm terribly sorry for breakage, but this makes us warn on long long
while self-hosting because we pass -pedantic -Wno-long-long, but
"'long long' is a C++11 extension" is in CXX11 group, not in LongLong
group.
How to handle this? Should I back out?
Dmitri
--
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
