On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Peter N Lewis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 17/08/2013, at 5:22 , Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > diag::ext_gnu_local_label shouldn't exist; it's not something we need > to > >> > diagnose. > >> > >> Is it not a GNU extension to have local labels? > > > > > > Yes. > > > >> > >> Are you suggesting the I delete the diagnostic for local labels, or not > >> add the explicit flag for that diagnostic? > > > > > > I'm suggesting you delete the diagnostic altogether; __label__ is in the > > implementation-reserved namespace. > > Hi Eli, > > I don't understand the reasoning here -- could you explain in more > detail? In my opinion, it makes sense to diagnose it. The primary point of Extension diagnostics is primarily to produce diagnostics which are required by the standard; they can also be useful so people don't use non-standard features by accident. Uses of identifiers in the reserved namespace fall into neither of those categories, so we don't want a diagnostic. There isn't any point to a diagnostic to warn about, e.g. every use of __sync_val_compare_and_swap. Also, _Complex > is in the reserved namespace, too -- but you are not objecting to > producing a diagnostic about it. > _Complex a keyword defined in the C99 standard; we have to produce a diagnostic if you use it in ways not allowed by the standard (like "_Complex int"). -Eli
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
