[wwwdocs] C++ preprocessor changes in 4.3

[wwwdocs] C++ preprocessor changes in 4.3

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 90 bytes --]

Hi,

The following documents the changes to the C++ preprocessor.

OK to commit?

Manuel.

[-- Attachment #2: changes-4.3-c++-cpp.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 969 bytes --]

Index: htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -p -r1.42 changes.html
*** htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html	28 Mar 2007 14:44:53 -0000	1.42
--- htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html	1 Apr 2007 22:06:16 -0000
***************
*** 34,39 ****
--- 34,47 ----
  
      <li>The <code>-fforce-mem</code> option has been removed
      because it had no effect in the last few GCC releases.</li>
+ 
+     <li>C++ preprocessor emits errors by default for certain
+     nonconformant code and for <code>-pedantic</code>, following the
+     default behaviour of the C++ front-end. As a result, some
+     warnings, such as "no newline at end of file", are now hard
+     errors.  The <code>-fpermissive</code> option can be used to
+     downgrade these diagnostics from errors to warnings.</li>
+ 
    </ul>
  
  <h2>General Optimizer Improvements</h2>

Re: [wwwdocs] C++ preprocessor changes in 4.3

[Dirk Mueller]

On Monday, 2. April 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:

> The following documents the changes to the C++ preprocessor.

Wasn't it the default behaviour of the C frontend?


Dirk

Re: [wwwdocs] C++ preprocessor changes in 4.3

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

On 02/04/07, Dirk Mueller <dmueller@suse.de> wrote:
> On Monday, 2. April 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> > The following documents the changes to the C++ preprocessor.
>
> Wasn't it the default behaviour of the C frontend?
>
>
> Dirk

I don't understand your comment but probably that means that the
explanation was not as clear as it should be.

The C++ front-end defaults to error for pedantic and a few other
nonconformant constructions (you can made them warnings with
-fpermissive), while the C front-end defaults to warning (you can made
them errors with -pedantic-errors).

Before GCC 4.3, diagnostics from both C and C++ preprocessors enabled
by -pedantic or triggered by nonconformant code  were just warnings
and you would need -pedantic-errors to make them errors. In GCC 4.3,
the C++ preprocessor behaves as the C++ front-end, so these
diagnostics are errors by default and you need fpermissive to make
them warnings.

Now, could you make suggestions on how to explain the above in just
one paragraph? any points where the patch provided fails to explain
the above?

Thanks,

Manuel.

[PING] [wwwdocs] C++ preprocessor changes in 4.3

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

PING: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00036.html

Thanks,

Manuel.

On 01/04/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following documents the changes to the C++ preprocessor.
>
> OK to commit?
>
> Manuel.
>
>

Re: [PING] [wwwdocs] C++ preprocessor changes in 4.3

[Dirk Mueller]

On Friday, 13. April 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:

> PING: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00036.html
>
> Thanks,

I interpret the approval rules the way that as the actual patch was approved 
already, the documentation changes related to it need no further approval. 
Although I have no review rights, I think its fine to go ahead. 


Dirk

Re: [PING] [wwwdocs] C++ preprocessor changes in 4.3

[Gerald Pfeifer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 540 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> PING: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00036.html

When I saw the original feedback by Dirk I expected some changes to
come out of that, but since it did not, I guess the patch is okay.

Only minor changes:

+     <li>C++ preprocessor emits errors by default for certain
+     nonconformant code and for <code>-pedantic</code>, following the
+     default behaviour of the C++ front-end.

"The C++ preprocessor", and I believe "non-conformant" is more common.

Thanks,
Gerald