| Message ID | 4EA4B7A8.1060507@oracle.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> ... and the patch ;)
I am bit puzzled by this:
+This flag is included in @option{-Wc++0x-compat}.
+With -std=c++0x, @option{-Wno-narrowing} suppresses the diagnostic
+required by the standard.
and this:
- /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++0x
- compatibility problems. */
if (cxx_dialect == cxx0x)
- warn_cxx0x_compat = 0;
+ {
+ /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++98
+ identifiers which are keywords in C++0x. */
+ warn_cxx0x_compat = 0;
+ if (warn_narrowing == -1)
+ warn_narrowing = 1;
+ }
We do not use -W or -Wno- to suppressed *required* diagnostics. So,
when -std=c++0x,
-Wno-narrowing should not have any effect. However with
-Wc++0x-compat, it could
make sense to have -Wno-narrowing suppress the diagnostic.
The point is this: we do not use -W flags to change a standards semantics.
But we use -W to make suggestions (e.g. warnings) so a suggesting should be
suppressed only in the context of another suggestion (-Wc++0x-compat.)
Hi, On 10/24/2011 03:30 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > We do not use -W or -Wno- to suppressed *required* diagnostics. So, > when -std=c++0x, -Wno-narrowing should not have any effect. Personally, I have no problem with this, but note, I'm not inventing anything new here, the behavior you are discussing *pre*-dates my patch and I feel a little nervous about changing it. If you think you can approve this part of rhe patch, I'll change it as you want and resend. Paolo.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/24/2011 03:30 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> We do not use -W or -Wno- to suppressed *required* diagnostics. So, when >> -std=c++0x, -Wno-narrowing should not have any effect. > > Personally, I have no problem with this, but note, I'm not inventing > anything new here, the behavior you are discussing *pre*-dates my patch and > I feel a little nervous about changing it. If you think you can approve this > part of rhe patch, I'll change it as you want and resend. Let me quote again the part of the patch under discussion: - /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++0x - compatibility problems. */ if (cxx_dialect == cxx0x) - warn_cxx0x_compat = 0; + { + /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++98 + identifiers which are keywords in C++0x. */ + warn_cxx0x_compat = 0; + if (warn_narrowing == -1) + warn_narrowing = 1; + } + else if (warn_narrowing == -1) + warn_narrowing = 0; + Before the patch, -std=c++0x effectively put off -Wc++0x-compat because we are compiling c++98/c++03 code, so we can only *warn* about possible compatibility conflict with C++11. However, the narrowing diagnostic required by C++11 is NOT a warning. It is a diagnostic. The way we alter a standard mandate is through some -fflag, e.g. -fpermissive. What the above patch fragment is doing is to turn on a *warning*. When -std=c++0x is in effect, narrowing is no longer a warning. It is an error by default.
On 10/24/2011 04:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Before the patch, -std=c++0x effectively put off -Wc++0x-compat > because we are compiling c++98/c++03 code, so we can only *warn* about > possible compatibility conflict with C++11. However, the narrowing > diagnostic required by C++11 is NOT a warning. It is a diagnostic. The > way we alter a standard mandate is through some -fflag, e.g. > -fpermissive. What the above patch fragment is doing is to turn on a > *warning*. When -std=c++0x is in effect, narrowing is no longer a > warning. It is an error by default. I'm missing your point, I'm sorry: I maintain that *before* and after the patch -Wno-narrowing in C++0x mode was able to suppress the narrowing warnings. I'm 100% sure, I double checked for you one second ago. Are we on the same page on this? If we are, and you think gcc should do something new, I have no problem changing my patch to, eg: if (cxx_dialect == cxx0x) { /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++98 identifiers which are keywords in C++0x. */ warn_cxx0x_compat = 0; warn_narrowing = 1; } else if (warn_narrowing == -1) warn_narrowing = 0; Paolo.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote: > On 10/24/2011 04:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> Before the patch, -std=c++0x effectively put off -Wc++0x-compat because we >> are compiling c++98/c++03 code, so we can only *warn* about possible >> compatibility conflict with C++11. However, the narrowing diagnostic >> required by C++11 is NOT a warning. It is a diagnostic. The way we alter a >> standard mandate is through some -fflag, e.g. -fpermissive. What the above >> patch fragment is doing is to turn on a *warning*. When -std=c++0x is in >> effect, narrowing is no longer a warning. It is an error by default. > > I'm missing your point, I'm sorry: I maintain that *before* and after the > patch -Wno-narrowing in C++0x mode was able to suppress the narrowing > warnings. and I am saying that is a bug. > 'm 100% sure, I double checked for you one second ago. Are we on > the same page on this? If we are, and you think gcc should do something new, It is new only in the sense that a bug will be fixed. Otherwise no, it is not new. > I have no problem changing my patch to, eg: > > if (cxx_dialect == cxx0x) > { > /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++98 > identifiers which are keywords in C++0x. */ > warn_cxx0x_compat = 0; > warn_narrowing = 1; > } Yes, a -Wno-narrowing should not suppress narrowing in C++11 mode. > else if (warn_narrowing == -1) > warn_narrowing = 0; > OK.
Index: doc/invoke.texi =================================================================== --- doc/invoke.texi (revision 180348) +++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy) @@ -2365,17 +2365,18 @@ an instance of a derived class through a pointer t base class does not have a virtual destructor. This warning is enabled by @option{-Wall}. -@item -Wno-narrowing @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)} +@item -Wnarrowing @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)} @opindex Wnarrowing @opindex Wno-narrowing -With -std=c++0x, suppress the diagnostic required by the standard for -narrowing conversions within @samp{@{ @}}, e.g. +Warn when a narrowing conversion occurs within @samp{@{ @}}, e.g. @smallexample int i = @{ 2.2 @}; // error: narrowing from double to int @end smallexample -This flag can be useful for compiling valid C++98 code in C++0x mode +This flag is included in @option{-Wc++0x-compat}. +With -std=c++0x, @option{-Wno-narrowing} suppresses the diagnostic +required by the standard. @item -Wnoexcept @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)} @opindex Wnoexcept @@ -2993,7 +2994,6 @@ Options} and @ref{Objective-C and Objective-C++ Di @gccoptlist{-Waddress @gol -Warray-bounds @r{(only with} @option{-O2}@r{)} @gol --Wc++0x-compat @gol -Wchar-subscripts @gol -Wenum-compare @r{(in C/Objc; this is on by default in C++)} @gol -Wimplicit-int @r{(C and Objective-C only)} @gol @@ -4066,7 +4066,7 @@ ISO C and ISO C++, e.g.@: request for implicit con @item -Wc++0x-compat @r{(C++ and Objective-C++ only)} Warn about C++ constructs whose meaning differs between ISO C++ 1998 and ISO C++ 200x, e.g., identifiers in ISO C++ 1998 that will become keywords -in ISO C++ 200x. This warning is enabled by @option{-Wall}. +in ISO C++ 200x. This warning turns on @option{-Wnarrowing}. @item -Wcast-qual @opindex Wcast-qual Index: c-family/c.opt =================================================================== --- c-family/c.opt (revision 180348) +++ c-family/c.opt (working copy) @@ -490,8 +490,8 @@ C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Warning Warn about use of multi-character character constants Wnarrowing -C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Warning Var(warn_narrowing) Init(1) --Wno-narrowing In C++0x mode, ignore ill-formed narrowing conversions within { } +C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Warning Var(warn_narrowing) Init(-1) Warning +Warn about ill-formed narrowing conversions within { } Wnested-externs C ObjC Var(warn_nested_externs) Warning Index: c-family/c-opts.c =================================================================== --- c-family/c-opts.c (revision 180348) +++ c-family/c-opts.c (working copy) @@ -404,7 +404,6 @@ c_common_handle_option (size_t scode, const char * /* C++-specific warnings. */ warn_sign_compare = value; warn_reorder = value; - warn_cxx0x_compat = value; warn_delnonvdtor = value; } @@ -436,6 +435,10 @@ c_common_handle_option (size_t scode, const char * cpp_opts->warn_cxx_operator_names = value; break; + case OPT_Wc__0x_compat: + warn_narrowing = value; + break; + case OPT_Wdeprecated: cpp_opts->cpp_warn_deprecated = value; break; @@ -997,11 +1000,18 @@ c_common_post_options (const char **pfilename) if (warn_implicit_function_declaration == -1) warn_implicit_function_declaration = flag_isoc99; - /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++0x - compatibility problems. */ if (cxx_dialect == cxx0x) - warn_cxx0x_compat = 0; + { + /* If we're allowing C++0x constructs, don't warn about C++98 + identifiers which are keywords in C++0x. */ + warn_cxx0x_compat = 0; + if (warn_narrowing == -1) + warn_narrowing = 1; + } + else if (warn_narrowing == -1) + warn_narrowing = 0; + if (flag_preprocess_only) { /* Open the output now. We must do so even if flag_no_output is Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/warn_cxx0x2.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/warn_cxx0x2.C (revision 0) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/warn_cxx0x2.C (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +// PR c++/50810 +// { dg-options "-std=gnu++98 -Wc++0x-compat" } + +signed char data[] = { 0xff }; // { dg-warning "narrowing" } Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/warn_cxx0x3.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/warn_cxx0x3.C (revision 0) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/warn_cxx0x3.C (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +// PR c++/50810 +// { dg-options "-std=gnu++98 -Wc++0x-compat -Wno-narrowing" } + +signed char data[] = { 0xff }; Index: cp/decl.c =================================================================== --- cp/decl.c (revision 180348) +++ cp/decl.c (working copy) @@ -5523,7 +5523,7 @@ check_initializer (tree decl, tree init, int flags else { init = reshape_init (type, init, tf_warning_or_error); - if (cxx_dialect >= cxx0x && SCALAR_TYPE_P (type)) + if (SCALAR_TYPE_P (type)) check_narrowing (type, init); } } Index: cp/typeck2.c =================================================================== --- cp/typeck2.c (revision 180348) +++ cp/typeck2.c (working copy) @@ -803,8 +803,10 @@ check_narrowing (tree type, tree init) } if (!ok) - pedwarn (input_location, OPT_Wnarrowing, "narrowing conversion of %qE " - "from %qT to %qT inside { }", init, ftype, type); + emit_diagnostic ((cxx_dialect != cxx98) ? DK_PEDWARN : DK_WARNING, + input_location, OPT_Wnarrowing, + "narrowing conversion of %qE from %qT to %qT inside { }", + init, ftype, type); } /* Process the initializer INIT for a variable of type TYPE, emitting @@ -901,7 +903,7 @@ digest_init_r (tree type, tree init, bool nested, { tree *exp; - if (cxx_dialect != cxx98 && nested) + if (nested) check_narrowing (type, init); init = convert_for_initialization (0, type, init, flags, ICR_INIT, NULL_TREE, 0, Index: cp/semantics.c =================================================================== --- cp/semantics.c (revision 180348) +++ cp/semantics.c (working copy) @@ -2369,7 +2369,7 @@ finish_compound_literal (tree type, tree compound_ && check_array_initializer (NULL_TREE, type, compound_literal)) return error_mark_node; compound_literal = reshape_init (type, compound_literal, complain); - if (cxx_dialect >= cxx0x && SCALAR_TYPE_P (type) + if (SCALAR_TYPE_P (type) && !BRACE_ENCLOSED_INITIALIZER_P (compound_literal)) check_narrowing (type, compound_literal); if (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE