On 06/05/2012 12:14 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 7:46 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
g++.dg/other/warning1.C -std=c++11 (test for warnings, line 10)
g++.dg/other/warning1.C -std=c++11 (test for warnings, line 11)
g++.dg/other/warning1.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
g++.dg/other/warning1.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 10)
g++.dg/other/warning1.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 11)
g++.dg/other/warning1.C -std=c++98 (test for excess errors)
So, this one is not obvious. The testcase checks for warning, and the compiler
generates an error. Could a C++ maintainer weigh in on it?
The errors are correct; indeed, we have always given an error for this
testcase with -pedantic-errors. It does seem like a diagnostic quality
regression that we no longer complain specifically about the division by
0. That regression seems to have happened in 4.3. Since this PR was
specifically about the formatting of 1.0f, that should have had its own
dg-warning line instead of being lumped in with the initialization error.
Jason
