On 10/08/2016 02:48, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> TL;DR If the warning is enabled by -Wpedantic, it should be an error
> with -Werror=pedantic and it should use cpp_pedwarning. Whether it
> should be enabled by -Wpedantic is more difficult to say.
>
> -pedantic is equivalent to -Wpedantic. If -W
On 9 August 2016 at 22:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 09/08/2016 20:30, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> + cpp_opts->warn_expansion_to_defined = cpp_warn_expansion_to_defined;
>>> + if (cpp_warn_expansion_to_defined == -1)
>>> +cpp_warn_expansion_to_defined = pedantic || extra_warni
On 09/08/2016 20:44, Eric Gallager wrote:
> Hi, I'm just a lurker, but...
>
> On 8/9/16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Index: gcc/c-family/c.opt
>> ===
>> --- gcc/c-family/c.opt (revision 239276)
>> +++ gcc/c-family/c.opt (wo
On 09/08/2016 20:30, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>>
>> + cpp_opts->warn_expansion_to_defined = cpp_warn_expansion_to_defined;
>> + if (cpp_warn_expansion_to_defined == -1)
>> +cpp_warn_expansion_to_defined = pedantic || extra_warnings;
>> +
>
> Instead of the above, plase use LangEnabled
Hi, I'm just a lurker, but...
On 8/9/16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Index: gcc/c-family/c.opt
> ===
> --- gcc/c-family/c.opt(revision 239276)
> +++ gcc/c-family/c.opt(working copy)
> @@ -506,6 +506,10 @@ Wdouble-promotion
On 09/08/16 16:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Index: gcc/c-family/c-opts.c
===
--- gcc/c-family/c-opts.c (revision 239276)
+++ gcc/c-family/c-opts.c (working copy)
@@ -1256,6 +1256,10 @@ sanitize_cpp_opts (void)
cpp_opts->un
