From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20131 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2016 15:21:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20117 invoked by uid 89); 5 Oct 2016 15:21:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=c89 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:21:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43A6E4DD79 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-44.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.44]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u95FLKGr007683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:21:21 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u95FLIg8019030 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:21:18 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u95FLGMo019029 for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:21:16 +0200 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:21:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [committed] Fix a comment Message-ID: <20161005152116.GO7282@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 Hi! I've noticed the c_common_reswords table has been changed to use D_CXX11 in 6.x, but the corresponding comment has not been updated (most likely because of typo in it CXXOX vs. CXX0X. Also, the -std= options look bogus. Fixed thusly, committed as obvious to trunk. 2016-10-05 Jakub Jelinek * c-common.c (c_common_reswords): Update comment for C++11. --- gcc/c-family/c-common.c.jj 2016-10-04 13:31:39.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc/c-family/c-common.c 2016-10-04 16:30:23.542133866 +0200 @@ -411,8 +411,8 @@ static int resort_field_decl_cmp (const C --std=c89: D_C99 | D_CXXONLY | D_OBJC | D_CXX_OBJC C --std=c99: D_CXXONLY | D_OBJC ObjC is like C except that D_OBJC and D_CXX_OBJC are not set - C++ --std=c98: D_CONLY | D_CXXOX | D_OBJC - C++ --std=c0x: D_CONLY | D_OBJC + C++ --std=c++98: D_CONLY | D_CXX11 | D_OBJC + C++ --std=c++11: D_CONLY | D_OBJC ObjC++ is like C++ except that D_OBJC is not set If -fno-asm is used, D_ASM is added to the mask. If Jakub