CCing some global reviewers as well, in case anyone has a minute to
take a look please? Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638692.html

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:57 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> May I please ask again about this one? It's just a couple lines, and I
> think it fixes an important gap in the logic for #pragma GCC
> diagnostic. The PR was not reported by me so I think at least one
> other person does care about it :). Thanks!
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638692.html
>
> -Lewis
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 6:53 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can I please ping this one again? It's 3 lines or so to fix the PR. Thanks!
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638692.html
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:20 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello-
> > >
> > > May I please ping this one? Thanks...
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/638692.html
> > >
> > > -Lewis
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 7:05 PM Lewis Hyatt <lhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 04:16:10PM -0500, Lewis Hyatt wrote:
> > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111918
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch fixes the behavior of `#pragma GCC diagnostic pop' for 
> > > > > permissive
> > > > > error diagnostics such as -Wnarrowing (in C++11). Those currently do 
> > > > > not
> > > > > return to the correct state after the last pop; they become 
> > > > > effectively
> > > > > simple warnings instead. Bootstrap + regtest all languages on x86-64, 
> > > > > does
> > > > > it look OK please? Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Hello-
> > > >
> > > > May I please ping this bug fix?
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/635871.html
> > > >
> > > > Please note, it requires a trivial rebase on top of recent changes to
> > > > the class diagnostic_context public interface. I attached the rebased 
> > > > patch
> > > > here as well. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > -Lewis

Reply via email to