[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 Evangelos Foutras evangelos at foutrelis dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||evangelos at foutrelis dot com --- Comment #23 from Evangelos Foutras evangelos at foutrelis dot com --- Please note that narrowing conversions don't seem to work the same way they did in GCC 4.9; I've filed PR c++/66007 for this change in behavior.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |5.2 --- Comment #22 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Fixed for 5.2 too.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #21 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Apr 30 16:31:36 2015 New Revision: 222636 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222636root=gccview=rev Log: /cp 2015-04-30 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/65801 * typeck2.c (check_narrowing): In C++11 mode too, -Wno-narrowing suppresses the diagnostic. 2015-04-30 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/65801 * doc/invoke.texi ([-Wnarrowing]): Update. /testsuite 2015-04-30 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/65801 * g++.dg/cpp0x/Wnarrowing2.C: New. Added: branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/Wnarrowing2.C Modified: branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/cp/typeck2.c branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/doc/invoke.texi branches/gcc-5-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- What is printed with -Wno-error=narrowing ?
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16) What is printed with -Wno-error=narrowing ? I'm also a bit afraid of how setting pedantic-errors in this way interacts with the #pragma GCC diagnostics. Wouldn't it be better to reclassify -Wnarrowing as an error (see diagnostic_classify_diagnostic) then simulate a #pragma GCC diagnostics pop to restore the previous state? The problem is the order in which the re-classification happens, which should appear as if it happened in the command-line and not at the point of warning, but diagnostic_classify_diagnostic assumes #pragmas are handled in the order given in the source code. Another alternative, perhaps simpler, would be to have a different option -Wnarrowing-strict, which by default is -Werror=narrowing-strict (see Werror-implicit-function-declaration) and it is enabled by -Wnarrowing. This way, everything should work as expected (unless latent bugs in the options handling machinery for not passing the error/warning state correctly when enabling dependant options). An even simpler options is to put this under -fpermissive so people realize that what they are doing is very wrong according to the standard (if it is not very wrong, then why error and not just pedwarn?).
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #17 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16) What is printed with -Wno-error=narrowing ? Try it yourself? Just a warning.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #17) (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #16) What is printed with -Wno-error=narrowing ? Try it yourself? Just a warning. Thanks, well at least that works. I guess if someone notices a problem with the #pragmas, a better solution can be found later.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- The problem with -fpermissive is that it doesn't just allow things like narrowing that are valid in C++03 but also allows all kind of ancient constructs that no sane person wants.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #15 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Apr 20 21:46:59 2015 New Revision: 49 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=49root=gccview=rev Log: /cp 2015-04-20 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/65801 * typeck2.c (check_narrowing): In C++11 mode too, -Wno-narrowing suppresses the diagnostic. 2015-04-20 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/65801 * doc/invoke.texi ([-Wnarrowing]): Update. /testsuite 2015-04-20 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/65801 * g++.dg/cpp0x/Wnarrowing2.C: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/Wnarrowing2.C Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/typeck2.c trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #13) Ok, I'll commit it in an hour or so to trunk. Is it too late for 5.1? It is IMHO too late for that, but not too late for 5.2.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Ok, I'll commit it in an hour or so to trunk. Is it too late for 5.1?
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #11) Draft patch 2 I think let's go with this. It's odd, but not complex and does what we want.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Couldn't you simply turn the error_at into pedwarn?
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Ok, thus what shall we do? Shall we go back to my minimal patch which only touched enums? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg00880.html
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Well, at the time I think we agreed that we wanted to be strict at least about enums... Otherwise, yes, we can do that plus setting ok = true in that case too, thus collapsing the last two ifs (+ reverting the docs change and adjusting the testsuite).
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Yes, I was thinking that in such cases clang does something we don't normally do (ie, an hard error by default suppressible with a -Wno-*). Let me see if we can achieve that as you suggested.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5) Well, at the time I think we agreed that we wanted to be strict at least about enums... Otherwise, yes, we can do that plus setting ok = true in that case too, thus collapsing the last two ifs (+ reverting the docs change and adjusting the testsuite). I think that for constants, we want it to be an error without -Wno-narrowing. I wonder if the best way to get that is to set pedantic_errors around the pedwarn call?
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Created attachment 35367 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35367action=edit Draft patch
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Jason, as far as I can see *nowhere* else in the compiler we fiddle with flag_pedantic_errors, all the tweaks I tried look super hackish to me :( If we are Ok with just going back to pedwarns the attached passes testing...
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Created attachment 35370 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35370action=edit Draft patch 2
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 --- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- I'm also attaching what I have for the forced pedantic-errors idea.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- This changed with Paolo's r213776. These examples suggest that the change to constant handling WRT -Wnarrowing was a mistake.
[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2015-04-18
CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|Allow -Wno-narrowing to |[5/6 Regression] Allow
|silence stricter C++11 |-Wno-narrowing to silence
|narrowing rules |stricter C++11 narrowing
||rules
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes. This also breaks building Chromium.
markus@x4 ~ % echo int main () {int i = { 0x };} | g++ -std=c++11
-Wno-narrowing -x c++ -
stdin: In function ‘int main()’:
stdin:1:35: error: narrowing conversion of ‘4294967295u’ from ‘unsigned int’
to ‘int’ inside { }
While the standard is clear that this is an error,
accepting -Wno-narrowing as in 4.8, 4.9 and clang looks acceptable to me.
