Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >> We could decide not to do anything about this, but I don't think it's a >> non-issue. With -std=gnu++98 g++ accepts this invalid code. That is, >> it is a g++ extension, and the code is properly rejected with >> -pedantic-errors. We could decide to carry the extension forward to >> -std=gnu++0x. Or we could decide to carry the extension forward to >> -std=gnu++0x when -fpermissive is used. Or we could decide to just drop >> the extension. >> >> The main problem with the last option is that it complicates the >> migration of existing gnu++98 programs to gnu++0x. It becomes necessary >> to add constexpr to use gnu++0x. Unfortunately, gnu++98 rejects >> constexpr. So there is no simple way to modify this program to be both >> valid gnu++98 and valid gnu++0x. That makes the transition more >> difficult. >> >> It seems to me that it would be better for our users to accept this code >> in gnu++0x mode with -fpermissive. > > Except it is documented as a Deprecated feature already so it is > different from a documented extension. I would say we should just > drop it as it is documented already as deprecated.
I don't think it is very helpful for us to drop a deprecated feature which we don't even warn about. If we take this path, can somebody write a patch for 4.6 to add a -Wdeprecated warning for this? Ian
