On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 19/05/21 12:53 -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 05:39:24PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > Jakub pointed out I'd forgotten the spaces before the opening parens > > > for function calls. The attached patch should fix all those, with no > > > other changes. > > > > > > Tested x86_64-linux. OK for trunk? > > > > Nice, this is cool. > > > > > --- a/gcc/c-family/c.opt > > > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c.opt > > > @@ -431,6 +431,22 @@ Wc++20-compat > > > C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_cxx20_compat) Warning LangEnabledBy(C++ ObjC++,Wall) > > > Warn about C++ constructs whose meaning differs between ISO C++ 2017 and > > > ISO C++ 2020. > > > > > > +Wc++11-extensions > > > +C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_cxx11_extensions) Warning LangEnabledBy(C++ > > > ObjC++,Wall) Init(1) > > > +Warn about C++11 constructs in code compiled with an older standard. > > > + > > > +Wc++14-extensions > > > +C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_cxx14_extensions) Warning LangEnabledBy(C++ > > > ObjC++,Wall) Init(1) > > > +Warn about C++14 constructs in code compiled with an older standard. > > > + > > > +Wc++17-extensions > > > +C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_cxx17_extensions) Warning LangEnabledBy(C++ > > > ObjC++,Wall) Init(1) > > > +Warn about C++17 constructs in code compiled with an older standard. > > > + > > > +Wc++20-extensions > > > +C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_cxx20_extensions) Warning LangEnabledBy(C++ > > > ObjC++,Wall) Init(1) > > > +Warn about C++20 constructs in code compiled with an older standard. > > > + > > > > So these are enabled by -Wall but also turned on by default? Let's choose > > one > > and then drop either the Init(1) or the LangEnabledBy(C++ ObjC++,Wall) part? > > Ah, good point. I mostly just cargo-cult what I see in that file (is > the format documented somewhere?)
doc/options.texi I think. > I think to preserve the current behaviour (using these constructs in > an unsupported dialect warns by default) we want them to be Init(1) > but not in -Wall. Or we could change the behaviour, and include them > in -Wall and not Init(1), but then people who don't use -Wall (aka > idiots and beginners) would not get the warnings. > > Any preference? Um. Probably Init(1) aka status quo. Frankly it sounds like a -pedantic thing to me, but I guess let's not change that now. Marek
