[Bug c++/60304] Including <atomic> disables -Wconversion-null

["manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60304

--- Comment #22 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #21)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19) 
> > This is exactly what G++'s stdbool.h is doing with -std=gnu++98 and
> > -std=c++98.
> 
> <stdbool.h> is a "header" which is C++ standardese for a standard library
> header. The rule only applies to user code, not std::lib headers. In your
> testcase sys.h is OK but nonsys.h is not.

We can drop the nonsys.h case. It is only testing that the no system_headers
case also works (according to your other comment, it will be valid if no
system_header is included).

My point is that the fix cannot be only limited to tweaking stdbool.h, as long
as any C++ mode still defines false as a macro.
>From gcc-bugs-return-464940-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 24 16:20:49 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-464940-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25488 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 16:20:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25420 invoked by uid 48); 24 Oct 2014 16:20:44 -0000
From: "evstupac at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63534] [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:28:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: evstupac at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63534-4-AcrKiwkjy5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01961.txt.bz2
Content-length: 785

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534

--- Comment #43 from Stupachenko Evgeny <evstupac at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #42)
> > --- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny <evstupac at gmail dot com> ---
> > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #40)
> [...]
> > That should be not "EBX enablig" issue as pointed in comments 17 and 35.
> > I'm testing bootstrap like in comment 34 and it passed.
> 
> Adding --with-arch=core2 --with-cpu=core2 didn't make any difference.
> 
> 	Rainer

The core thing in comment 34 is "patch in comment 33 applied on top of
r216304".

Most likely after r216304 someone broke darwin bootstrap again.
So to test my changes I use revision r216304 with patch from commnet 33.
>From gcc-bugs-return-464941-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 24 16:28:22 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-464941-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32573 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 16:28:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 32514 invoked by uid 48); 24 Oct 2014 16:28:18 -0000
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63534] [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:30:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63534-4-awst8aHfLu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01962.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1177

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534

--- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #43)
> (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #42)
> > > --- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny <evstupac at gmail dot com> ---
> > > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #40)
> > [...]
> > > That should be not "EBX enablig" issue as pointed in comments 17 and 35.
> > > I'm testing bootstrap like in comment 34 and it passed.
> > 
> > Adding --with-arch=core2 --with-cpu=core2 didn't make any difference.
> > 
> > 	Rainer
> 
> The core thing in comment 34 is "patch in comment 33 applied on top of
> r216304".
> 
> Most likely after r216304 someone broke darwin bootstrap again.
> So to test my changes I use revision r216304 with patch from commnet 33.

there were at one point this week 4 concurrent bootstrap breaks on dariwn.

this PR.
the ipa-icf series
requiring non-weak aliases
and the iconv dep on libcpp.

I don't know how many of those have been fixed so far - but I suspect that not
all have.  Unfortunately, not able to be more explict right now.
>From gcc-bugs-return-464943-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 24 16:31:14 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-464943-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7430 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 16:31:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7381 invoked by uid 55); 24 Oct 2014 16:31:10 -0000
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63534] [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:31:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63534-4-eM9394cVvo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01964.txt.bz2
Content-length: 824

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc534

--- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #43)
[...]
> there were at one point this week 4 concurrent bootstrap breaks on dariwn.
>
> this PR.
> the ipa-icf series
> requiring non-weak aliases
> and the iconv dep on libcpp.
>
> I don't know how many of those have been fixed so far - but I suspect that not
> all have.  Unfortunately, not able to be more explict right now.

Thanks for the update.  As I said, I'd completely lost track of what's
going on here.

I'm now testing the rev before Evgeny's patch to check if that
bootstraps on 10.10.  If not, we may have yet another issue here.

    Rainer