On 26 May 2017 at 11:29, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > If we generally think that distinction is a good thing, then (because this > is a conforming extension) consistency weakly suggests that it should not be > controlled by GNU mode. But I don't find that argument decisive; the > important thing is that we don't enable non-conforming extensions by default > in non-GNU (and non-MS-compat) modes, not that GNU mode consists of /only/ > non-conforming extensions.
I'm pretty convinced by the conforming/non-conforming distinction and consistency argument. And think that the Microsoft way seems even better for the future. Making the libc++ test pass is pretty ugly, but I've managed to get it working by building with "-Werror=gnu-imaginary-constant". Marshall, I know this really isn't your preferred solution but can you stomach it if I also make sure we do the extra diagnostics so it's difficult to misuse? > Looking at the > > std::complex<float> x = 1.0if; > > case again, I think there's another problem here: we support an implicit > conversion from _Complex float to float in C++ (without even a warning). > This conversion is valid in C, but at least GCC disallows it in its C++ > mode. We should probably at least warn on that. Definitely. I think the error from G++ is probably the right choice. I'll get cracking on that, it's a good idea regardless of what happens here. Cheers. Tim. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
