On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, 09:38 Jonathan Wakely, <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, 09:30 Jakub Jelinek via Libstdc++, < > libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:27:09AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 08:41:06AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via >> Gcc-patches wrote: >> > > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/max_size_type.h >> > > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/max_size_type.h >> > > @@ -417,7 +417,10 @@ namespace ranges >> > > #endif >> > > >> > > #if __SIZEOF_INT128__ >> > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push >> > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wpedantic" >> > > using __rep = unsigned __int128; >> > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop >> > >> > At least in simple cases like this, wouldn't >> > using __rep = __extension__ unsigned __int128; >> >> __extension__ using __rep = unsigned __int128; >> actually (now tested). >> > > Ah, thanks. I didn't find the right syntax, and I know __extension__ > doesn't work in other cases, like quad float literals, so I assumed it > doesn't work here. I suppose the literals don't work because the warning > comes from the processor, which doesn't understand __extension__ (and also > ignores the diagnostic pragma). > That grammar for a using-declaration makes no sense at all btw ;-)
