On 9/3/24 7:00 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 3:01 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. -- 8< -- I don't see any reason why we can't allow the [[]] attribute syntax in C++98 mode with a pedwarn just like many other C++11 features. In fact, we already do support it in some places in the grammar, but not in places that check cp_nth_tokens_can_be_std_attribute_p. Let's also follow the C front-end's lead in only warning about them when -pedantic. It still isn't necessary for this function to guard against Objective-C message passing syntax; we handle that with tentative parsing in cp_parser_statement, and we don't call this function in that context anyway. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * parser.cc (cp_nth_tokens_can_be_std_attribute_p): Don't check cxx_dialect. * error.cc (maybe_warn_cpp0x): Only complain about C++11 attributes if pedantic. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-1.C: Also run in C++98 mode. * g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-11.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-13.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-15.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-75.C: Don't expect C++98 warning after __extension__. --- gcc/cp/error.cc | 7 ++++--- gcc/cp/parser.cc | 9 ++++----- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-1.C | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-11.C | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-13.C | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-15.C | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/gen-attrs-75.C | 10 +++++----- 7 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/cp/error.cc b/gcc/cp/error.cc index 57cd76caf49..4a9e9aa3cdc 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/error.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/error.cc @@ -4735,9 +4735,10 @@ maybe_warn_cpp0x (cpp0x_warn_str str, location_t loc/*=input_location*/) "only available with %<-std=c++11%> or %<-std=gnu++11%>"); break; case CPP0X_ATTRIBUTES: - pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wc__11_extensions, - "C++11 attributes " - "only available with %<-std=c++11%> or %<-std=gnu++11%>"); + if (pedantic) + pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wc__11_extensions, + "C++11 attributes " + "only available with %<-std=c++11%> or %<-std=gnu++11%>");Shouldn't the warning also change to mention -std=gnu++98 now? Or maybe reworded a little more?
That's the conventional wording for pedwarns about extensions from later standards; I wouldn't change this one alone, though I agree a general rewording might make sense.
Jason
