On 02/19/2016 02:37 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 19.02.2016 17:03, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/19/2016 10:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
+ flag_isoc94 = 0;
+ flag_isoc99 = 0;
Why? These flags are global variables, so they're already
zero-initialized.
Otherwise the changes look good to me.
Jason
Hi Jason,
This hunk is really needed.
I can prove it:
Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (revision
233557)
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (working copy)
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* PR c/65179 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-O -Wextra" } */
-/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c++03" { target c++ } } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c++11 -std=c++03" { target c++ } } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c90" { target c } } */
enum E {
unpatched gcc gives:
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (test for bogus
messages, line 10)
FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (test for bogus
messages, line 26)
FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (test for bogus
messages, line 29)
Would you like me to commit the above test case change together with
both parts of the patch?
Do you think the patch is OK now?
OK.
Jason
