| Message ID | 20160705100741.GB316@x4 |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > Hi, > > as PR71214 points out gcc uses a wrong feature test macro for C++11 > rvalue references: __cpp_rvalue_reference instead of the correct > __cpp_rvalue_references. > > The fix is trivial. Ok for trunk and active branches? I wonder if we should to retain the (bogus) old defines for backward compatibility. Does anyone use those? Richard. > Thanks. > > c-family/ChangeLog > > * c-cppbuiltin.c (c_cpp_builtins): Use __cpp_rvalue_references > instead of __cpp_rvalue_reference. > > diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c b/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c > index 408ad4747a33..f19375a73730 100644 > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c > @@ -847,7 +847,7 @@ c_cpp_builtins (cpp_reader *pfile) > cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_static_assert=200410"); > cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_decltype=200707"); > cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_attributes=200809"); > - cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_rvalue_reference=200610"); > + cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_rvalue_references=200610"); > cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_variadic_templates=200704"); > cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_initializer_lists=200806"); > cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_delegating_constructors=200604"); > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C > index 397b9a899573..6928d6bcbd87 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C > @@ -77,10 +77,10 @@ > # error "__cpp_attributes != 200809" > #endif > > -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference > -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" > -#elif __cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610 > -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610" > +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references > +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" > +#elif __cpp_rvalue_references != 200610 > +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references != 200610" > #endif > > #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C > index fa59f90fa892..dc30a9b3cf84 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C > @@ -70,10 +70,10 @@ > # error "__cpp_attributes != 200809" > #endif > > -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference > -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" > -#elif __cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610 > -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610" > +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references > +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" > +#elif __cpp_rvalue_references != 200610 > +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references != 200610" > #endif > > #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C > index 886b3d3df10e..5fbffabd1396 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C > @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ > # error "__cpp_attributes" // { dg-error "error" } > #endif > > -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference > -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" // { dg-error "error" } > +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references > +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" // { dg-error "error" } > #endif > > #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C > index f8a87a8ddc37..c7becc1cbb47 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C > @@ -58,10 +58,10 @@ > # error "__cpp_attributes != 200809" > #endif > > -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference > -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" > -#elif __cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610 > -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610" > +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references > +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" > +#elif __cpp_rvalue_references != 200610 > +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references != 200610" > #endif > > #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates > -- > Markus
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > <markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> as PR71214 points out gcc uses a wrong feature test macro for C++11 >> rvalue references: __cpp_rvalue_reference instead of the correct >> __cpp_rvalue_references. >> >> The fix is trivial. Ok for trunk and active branches? > > I wonder if we should to retain the (bogus) old defines for backward > compatibility. Hmm. The original SD-6 proposal (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3694.htm) used the singular, but it soon changed to plural; I haven't been able to find any email discussion of the change. I think let's keep both defines. Jason
On 2016.07.05 at 12:21 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener > <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > > <markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> as PR71214 points out gcc uses a wrong feature test macro for C++11 > >> rvalue references: __cpp_rvalue_reference instead of the correct > >> __cpp_rvalue_references. > >> > >> The fix is trivial. Ok for trunk and active branches? > > > > I wonder if we should to retain the (bogus) old defines for backward > > compatibility. > > Hmm. The original SD-6 proposal > (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3694.htm) > used the singular, but it soon changed to plural; I haven't been able > to find any email discussion of the change. I think let's keep both > defines. Ok, no problem. But what about the testsuite fallout? 1) Change to plural as in my patch. 2) Add additional tests for plural. 3) Don't change anything at all.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > On 2016.07.05 at 12:21 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Richard Biener >> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf >> > <markus@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> as PR71214 points out gcc uses a wrong feature test macro for C++11 >> >> rvalue references: __cpp_rvalue_reference instead of the correct >> >> __cpp_rvalue_references. >> >> >> >> The fix is trivial. Ok for trunk and active branches? >> > >> > I wonder if we should to retain the (bogus) old defines for backward >> > compatibility. >> >> Hmm. The original SD-6 proposal >> (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3694.htm) >> used the singular, but it soon changed to plural; I haven't been able >> to find any email discussion of the change. I think let's keep both >> defines. > > Ok, no problem. But what about the testsuite fallout? > > 1) Change to plural as in my patch. > 2) Add additional tests for plural. > 3) Don't change anything at all. Changing the test to plural seems appropriate. Jason
diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c b/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c index 408ad4747a33..f19375a73730 100644 --- a/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c @@ -847,7 +847,7 @@ c_cpp_builtins (cpp_reader *pfile) cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_static_assert=200410"); cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_decltype=200707"); cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_attributes=200809"); - cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_rvalue_reference=200610"); + cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_rvalue_references=200610"); cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_variadic_templates=200704"); cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_initializer_lists=200806"); cpp_define (pfile, "__cpp_delegating_constructors=200604"); diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C index 397b9a899573..6928d6bcbd87 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx11.C @@ -77,10 +77,10 @@ # error "__cpp_attributes != 200809" #endif -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" -#elif __cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610 -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610" +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" +#elif __cpp_rvalue_references != 200610 +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references != 200610" #endif #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C index fa59f90fa892..dc30a9b3cf84 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx14.C @@ -70,10 +70,10 @@ # error "__cpp_attributes != 200809" #endif -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" -#elif __cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610 -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610" +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" +#elif __cpp_rvalue_references != 200610 +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references != 200610" #endif #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C index 886b3d3df10e..5fbffabd1396 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/feat-cxx98-neg.C @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ # error "__cpp_attributes" // { dg-error "error" } #endif -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" // { dg-error "error" } +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" // { dg-error "error" } #endif #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C index f8a87a8ddc37..c7becc1cbb47 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/feat-cxx1z.C @@ -58,10 +58,10 @@ # error "__cpp_attributes != 200809" #endif -#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_reference -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference" -#elif __cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610 -# error "__cpp_rvalue_reference != 200610" +#ifndef __cpp_rvalue_references +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references" +#elif __cpp_rvalue_references != 200610 +# error "__cpp_rvalue_references != 200610" #endif #ifndef __cpp_variadic_templates