On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Peter N Lewis <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 17/08/2013, at 19:13 , Peter N Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 17/08/2013, at 14:59 , 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. > > > > OK, here it is again, this time with the local label warning removed > entirely, so the "use of GNU locally declared label extension" will never > be emitted. > > > > If you prefer it as two separate patches, you can commit the previous > version, and then I'll submit a new patch to remove the "use of GNU > locally declared label extension" warning. > > Thinking about this further, it would be better done as two separate > patches in case anyone ever wants to restore the __label__ warning, they > can revert the second patch. So I would suggest committing the previous > patch (which I include here for completeness) and then I'll submit a second > patch removing the __label__ warning. Any other comments? > LGTM. -Eli
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
