From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-397390-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 118209 invoked by alias); 9 May 2015 18:27:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 118199 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2015 18:27:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MXURI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mail.ud10.udmedia.de
Received: from ud10.udmedia.de (HELO mail.ud10.udmedia.de) (194.117.254.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 09 May 2015 18:27:51 +0000
Received: (qmail 10873 invoked from network); 9 May 2015 20:27:46 +0200
Received: from unknown (HELO x4) (ud10?360p3@91.65.248.138)  by mail.ud10.udmedia.de with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 9 May 2015 20:27:46 +0200
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 18:27:00 -0000
From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: PATCHes to help with C++11 bootstrap
Message-ID: <20150509182746.GA365@x4>
References: <554D8D79.9080502@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <554D8D79.9080502@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00828.txt.bz2

On 2015.05.08 at 23:30 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> One C++11 compatibility issue that turns up a lot in the GCC sources is 
> that in C++98,
> 
> #define BAR "bar"
> const char *p = "foo"BAR;
> 
> is well-formed, giving p the value "foobar".  But in C++11 this is a 
> user-defined literal with the suffix BAR, which is ill-formed because 
> there is no BAR suffix defined.
> 
> -Wc++11-compat didn't warn about this, which I'm fixing with the first 
> patch.
> 
> The second patch fixes all the occurrences in GCC.
> 
> The third patch fixes the warning to say "-Wc++11-compat" rather than 
> "-Wc++0x-compat".

This also enables the following bogus warning:

 ~ % cat test.cpp
template <int> struct X {};
template <typename> struct Y { static int const c = 0; };
int main() { return Y<X<1>>::c; }

 ~ % g++ -Wall -std=c++11 test.cpp
test.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cpp:3:26: warning: ‘>>’ operator is treated as two right angle brackets in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat]
 int main() { return Y<X<1>>::c; }
                          ^
test.cpp:3:26: note: suggest parentheses around ‘>>’ expression

-- 
Markus