Message ID | 5542858A.7050703@oracle.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 1 May 2015 at 01:12, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > On 04/30/2015 08:45 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> >> .. also, your patch doesn't seem to fix the case of -w instead of That could be fixed as follows: if (!warn_narrowing || inhibit_warnings) ok = true; else // pedwarn >> -Wno-narrowing. I think we want to check the return value of the pedwarn >> instead. I'm testing something. > > I'm finishing testing the below: with hindsight, checking the return value > of the pedwarn makes a lot of sense to me! Indeed, checking return value of pedwarn is better compared to testing on warning flags. Thanks for pointing out -;) Regards, Prathamesh > > Paolo. > > ///////////////////////
OK (= true). Jason
Index: cp/typeck2.c =================================================================== --- cp/typeck2.c (revision 222628) +++ cp/typeck2.c (working copy) @@ -959,9 +959,10 @@ check_narrowing (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flag else if (complain & tf_error) { global_dc->pedantic_errors = 1; - pedwarn (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (init, input_location), OPT_Wnarrowing, - "narrowing conversion of %qE from %qT to %qT inside { }", - init, ftype, type); + if (!pedwarn (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (init, input_location), OPT_Wnarrowing, + "narrowing conversion of %qE from %qT to %qT " + "inside { }", init, ftype, type)) + ok = true; global_dc->pedantic_errors = flag_pedantic_errors; } } Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/Wnarrowing4.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/Wnarrowing4.C (revision 0) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/Wnarrowing4.C (working copy) @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +// PR c++/65858 +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } +// { dg-require-effective-target lto } +// { dg-options "-flto -Wno-narrowing" } + +int x { 0.5 };