From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82101 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2015 19:53:03 -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 82092 invoked by uid 89); 11 Aug 2015 19:53:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_MANYTO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8295A19F38B; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-104.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.104]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7BJr0qS017015; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:53:00 -0400 Subject: Re: PR c/c++/diagnostics/66098 Take -Werror into account when deciding what was the command-line status To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFudWVsIEzDs3Blei1JYsOhw7Fleg==?= , Gcc Patch List , Dodji Seketeli , "Joseph S. Myers" , Marek Polacek , Jason Merrill References: From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <55CA529C.3090903@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00541.txt.bz2 On 08/10/2015 08:37 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > PING^2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02581.html > > On 3 August 2015 at 20:47, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg02581.html >> >> Thanks, >> >> Manuel. >> >> On 30 July 2015 at 17:35, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >>> When I fixed PR59304, I forgot that a command-line warning can be also >>> an error if -Werror was enabled. This introduced a regression since >>> anything enabled in the command-line together with -Werror would get >>> initially classified as a warning when reaching the first #pragma GCC >>> diagnostic, and this will be the setting after a #pragma pop. >>> >>> Options that appear as arguments of -W[no-]error= are not affected by >>> this since those are initially classified as errors/warnings even >>> before reaching the first #pragma, thus the pop sets them correctly >>> (before and after this patch). Nonetheless, the tests also check that >>> they work correctly. >>> >>> Boot®tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. >>> >>> OK? >>> >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2015-07-29 Manuel López-Ibáñez >>> >>> PR c/66098 >>> PR c/66711 >>> * diagnostic.c (diagnostic_classify_diagnostic): Take -Werror into >>> account when deciding what was the command-line status. >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: >>> >>> 2015-07-29 Manuel López-Ibáñez >>> >>> PR c/66098 >>> PR c/66711 >>> * gcc.dg/pragma-diag-3.c: New test. >>> * gcc.dg/pragma-diag-4.c: New test. OK jeff