On 2/15/24 16:51, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
Relaxing to pedwarn is fine, but I think it should be on by default, not just
with -pedantic. So it should get a new option.
Ah, like so? I'm not sure about naming the option Wmodules-gmf-contents
vs just Wgmf-
> > > + pedwarn (token->location, OPT_Wpedantic,
> > > +"global module fragment contents must be"
> > > + " from preprocessor inclusion");
> >
> > Relaxing to pedwarn is fine, but I think i
gt;
> Relaxing to pedwarn is fine, but I think it should be on by default, not just
> with -pedantic. So it should get a new option.
Ah, like so? I'm not sure about naming the option Wmodules-gmf-contents
vs just Wgmf-contents, or something else...
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++/m
On 2/15/24 16:10, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look
OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
Issuing a hard error when the GMF doesn't contain preprocessing
directives is inconvenient for automated testcase reduction via cvise.
This patch relaxes this diagnost
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look
OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
Issuing a hard error when the GMF doesn't contain preprocessing
directives is inconvenient for automated testcase reduction via cvise.
This patch relaxes this diagnostic into a pedwarn.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
