On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:41 , Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 16, 2014, at 8:51 , Richard Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> +def CXXPre1zCompat : DiagGroup<"c++98-c++11-c++14-compat">; >> +def CXXPre1zCompatPedantic : >> DiagGroup<"c++98-c++11-c++14-compat-pedantic", >> + [CXXPre1zCompat]>; >> >> >> I'm not happy with this warning name. Can we say the *compat options are >> just the newest version? c++14-compat? >> > > That doesn't work: we want -Wc++11-compat to list all incompatibilities > with C++11, including this one. > > My preference is to make this group unnamed, but I don't know if we > support that, nor what we'd list in the [-W...] in the diagnostic if we did. > > > Then how about > > -Wpre-c++1z-compat, which is included by -Wc++98-compat, -Wc++11-compat, > and -Wc++14-compat. > -Wpost-c++11-compat, which is included by -Wc++11-compat, -Wc++14-compat, > and -Wc++1z-compat. > > ? > > It's not perfect because "post-" doesn't usually include the reference > point, but it does provide a very consistent taxonomy. > I would expect the latter warning to be called -Wpost-c++98-compat (that is, warn for things that aren't compatible with C++ after C++98). Other than that, I think the scheme you suggest is an improvement.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
