On 19/05/21 16:08 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 4:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 20:55 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 13:26 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/19/21 12:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/05/21 17:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely 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?
Jakub also pointed out we already have some similar diagnostics for
C++23, but I missed them as they say "only optional with" not "only
available with".
I'm testing the incremental change in the attached patch which also
adds -Wc++23-extensions, and I'll resend the full patch after that
finishes.
if (omitted_parms_loc && lambda_specs.any_specifiers_p)
{
- pedwarn (omitted_parms_loc, 0,
+ pedwarn (omitted_parms_loc, OPT_Wc__23_extensions,
You probably want to change
else if (cxx_dialect < cxx23)
omitted_parms_loc = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser->lexer)->location;
To use warn_about_dialect_p.
Ah yes.
And just above that there's another pedwarn about a C++14 feature
being used:
/* Default arguments shall not be specified in the
parameter-declaration-clause of a lambda-declarator. */
if (cxx_dialect < cxx14)
for (tree t = param_list; t; t = TREE_CHAIN (t))
if (TREE_PURPOSE (t) && DECL_P (TREE_VALUE (t)))
pedwarn (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (TREE_VALUE (t)), OPT_Wpedantic,
"default argument specified for lambda parameter");
I didn't notice that one initially. That should also use
warn_about_dialect_p and OPT_Wc__14_extensions.
Should I change the message to say "init capture" rather than
"default argument"?
I'll add some docs to invoke.texi and get a new patch out.
Oh, also we have https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93769
which points out a problem with the current wording. Not a very
important one, but still ...
While I'm touching all 38(?) places that say "only available with
-std=c++NN or -std=gnu++NN I could change them to say something like
"only available since C++NN". Should I bother?
Clang's equivalent warnings say "are a C++11 feature" e.g.
ext.C:1:17: warning: inline namespaces are a C++11 feature
[-Wc++11-inline-namespace]
(They have a specific warning for each feature, with
-Wc++11-extensions to control them all at once.)
The clang wording seems more accurate, as that PR points out.
OK, that requires touching a number of error_at and inform calls as
well as the pedwarns, so I'll address that separately in a later
patch.
