From patchwork Fri Feb 19 19:37:10 2016 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Bernd Edlinger X-Patchwork-Id: 585393 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8433F140662 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:37:30 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gcc.gnu.org header.i=@gcc.gnu.org header.b=K/w65ERf; dkim-atps=neutral DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=uHRTMklU/U2YBTcVzFi3l8n4iRCDbEp05ZzsSh3thCF kd5SLcCbxtI8Cq4S243VUk7+LZbvgbi1ykrhpbE5lpHsRNzvUeKHFNdUt3rtE2RU IyWC4sBeb1219UYxD7qpfG2zhNXwz0hx2rK/MK7Jqo5dXarBULNRvqAuumXA91sg = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-archive:list-post:list-help:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; s=default; bh=MgsZuSDzbO0GvtMf4YBF2+bZzRY=; b=K/w65ERfFfJUDPDCH P/lBbQkHCJzvTCZMl8jAZ8x+5Tv59YuzzDDsMvFyXn5lMEhMg+pyljVsi/R8QAw9 AaezEmcQWTmtH3tbYtYOyA7jpXtD4MEbyXIZfaeimNRTkq3uuvKGMEScwpKOMgke sX2G6CTlBIWa48+t4QM7xvKbts= Received: (qmail 125757 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2016 19:37:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 125656 invoked by uid 89); 19 Feb 2016 19:37:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: DUB004-OMC2S33.hotmail.com Received: from dub004-omc2s33.hotmail.com (HELO DUB004-OMC2S33.hotmail.com) (157.55.1.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:37:14 +0000 Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([157.55.1.136]) by DUB004-OMC2S33.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:37:11 -0800 Received: from HE1PR07MB0905.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.162.26.12) by HE1PR07MB0907.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.162.26.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.409.15; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:37:10 +0000 Received: from HE1PR07MB0905.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.26.12]) by HE1PR07MB0905.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.26.12]) with mapi id 15.01.0409.017; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:37:10 +0000 From: Bernd Edlinger To: Jason Merrill , Jakub Jelinek CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Jonathan Wakely Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] Fix option handling when -std=gnu++14 is not used (PR 69865) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:37:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160219105612.GA3017@tucnak.redhat.com> <20160219113126.GB3017@tucnak.redhat.com> <20160219115945.GC3017@tucnak.redhat.com> <20160219122212.GD3017@tucnak.redhat.com> <20160219122646.GE3017@tucnak.redhat.com> <20160219152243.GP3017@tucnak.redhat.com> <56C73CCB.4070709@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <56C73CCB.4070709@redhat.com> authentication-results: redhat.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; redhat.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.de; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR07MB0907; 23:P7tSeYWMyULccs1R2YndWLhbUrtTCYnaopt4fhR8nvgqTppW2BMLmi2QJILUf7+cIgK1XB40Yge+oORvmXNI/T81aesmoFR7xcbNnuQa4I6EtPONDB1VymweQAYXJsle+pXVBy0kgc1PgTzADVaG3TPnQDUgU6QcuXk/MnSUg+M3+HPk2TOsfZvENfvZWePNe7cZMyA3kq0ELWr7Y5ILhg==; 5:YSj/kdh0lcV6RH0J6HNy2owJYY59rrPs48HzzJRUZYk2Nf8+rOGe6ui5T/qppAWaczvfwaBAq8sHOG05WcnkQU/6MALsZ0a2yKgA76ZyhyjxUwUzX0SppqLiBUFSLYgCS4+zB5P6uao5GEtEabuBgg==; 24:VJALmA/8zHQRSCg+Z0ddICrxKgcHwFqsXR/1kfHTEd0UjfFP3szhyskrHDERQ+dJuRnoSi/JrfsefPkxg59hsxzJ52eGicDyBM14MfH4yps= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:HE1PR07MB0907; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2b4637ca-7658-45a4-d66f-08d339640cfb x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(432015012)(82015046); SRVR:HE1PR07MB0907; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1PR07MB0907; x-forefront-prvs: 08572BD77F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070004)(98900003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB0907; H:HE1PR07MB0905.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-ID: <1DF6DCA07F0B3C43A6E0C58B19A203F4@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: sct-15-1-409-10-msonline-outlook-d6129.templateTenant X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Feb 2016 19:37:10.4216 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB0907 On 19.02.2016 17:03, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/19/2016 10:51 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> + flag_isoc94 = 0; >> + flag_isoc99 = 0; > > Why? These flags are global variables, so they're already > zero-initialized. > > Otherwise the changes look good to me. > > Jason > Hi Jason, This hunk is really needed. I can prove it: unpatched gcc gives: === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (test for bogus messages, line 10) FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (test for bogus messages, line 26) FAIL: c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (test for bogus messages, line 29) Would you like me to commit the above test case change together with both parts of the patch? Do you think the patch is OK now? Thanks Bernd. Index: gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (revision 233557) +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wshift-negative-value-6.c (working copy) @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ /* PR c/65179 */ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-options "-O -Wextra" } */ -/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c++03" { target c++ } } */ +/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c++11 -std=c++03" { target c++ } } */ /* { dg-additional-options "-std=c90" { target c } } */ enum E {