Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

[neil]

Synopsis: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->neil
Responsible-Changed-By: neil
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Dec 11 13:16:54 2002
Responsible-Changed-Why:
    Mine.  I'll come up with something.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7263

Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

[Christian Ehrhardt]

The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/7263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Christian Ehrhardt" <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
To: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk>
Cc: andrew@andypo.net, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
  nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:36:37 +0100

 On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:22:56AM +0000, Neil Booth wrote:
 > ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de wrote:-
 > 
 > >     I can confirm this on recent 3.3. The warning is from the preprocessor
 > >     where we don't know about __extension__. Maybe the fix is to just
 > >     document this. Anyway: Category changed to preprocessor and priority
 > >     raised to medium because this is technically a regression.
 > 
 > I think we just document __extension__ as only applying to non-CPP issues;
 > we can't reasonably expect CPP to interact with a parser in all situations
 > and under all future code changes.  I imagine we could enhance existing
 > code so that we don't have this problem in cases where it is the C front
 > end requesting the number interpretation, since it could easily pass a
 > "don't warn about foo" flag to cpplib.  However expecting cpplib to get
 > it right for #if is not reasonable, seeing as #if can occur between any
 > two tokens.
 
 The real problem seems to be that cpplib has its own copy of warning options
 in pfile->cpp_opts. The C parser disables the global pedantic flag while
 __extension__ is in effect. However, this change is not propagated into
 cpp_opts. If this was done we could just add the pedantic check in
 cppexp.c. However, neither do I see a clean way to propagate the global
 pedantic flag into cpp_opts nor to check the global flag from cpplib.
 
      regards   Christian
 
 -- 
 THAT'S ALL FOLKS!

Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

[Neil Booth]

The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/7263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.co.uk>
To: ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de, andrew@andypo.net, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
	gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 00:22:56 +0000

 ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de wrote:-
 
 >     I can confirm this on recent 3.3. The warning is from the preprocessor
 >     where we don't know about __extension__. Maybe the fix is to just
 >     document this. Anyway: Category changed to preprocessor and priority
 >     raised to medium because this is technically a regression.
 
 I think we just document __extension__ as only applying to non-CPP issues;
 we can't reasonably expect CPP to interact with a parser in all situations
 and under all future code changes.  I imagine we could enhance existing
 code so that we don't have this problem in cases where it is the C front
 end requesting the number interpretation, since it could easily pass a
 "don't warn about foo" flag to cpplib.  However expecting cpplib to get
 it right for #if is not reasonable, seeing as #if can occur between any
 two tokens.
 
 Neil.

Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

[Joseph S. Myers]

The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/7263; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
To: <ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de>,  <andrew@andypo.net>, 
     <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,  <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning
 on LL or ULL constants
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:24:53 +0000 (GMT)

 On 9 Dec 2002 ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de wrote:
 
 > Synopsis: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants
 > 
 > State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
 > State-Changed-By: cae
 > State-Changed-When: Mon Dec  9 15:10:17 2002
 > State-Changed-Why:
 >     I can confirm this on recent 3.3. The warning is from the preprocessor
 >     where we don't know about __extension__. Maybe the fix is to just
 >     document this. Anyway: Category changed to preprocessor and priority
 >     raised to medium because this is technically a regression.
 
 Note the same issue applies with the warning for complex floats; since
 __extension__ is there used by glibc's <complex.h> to define _Complex_I,
 some fix involving not warning for such constants arising from macros
 defined in system headers may be necessary.
 
 -- 
 Joseph S. Myers
 jsm28@cam.ac.uk
 

Re: preprocessor/7263: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

[ehrhardt]

Synopsis: __extension__ keyword doesn't suppress warning on LL or ULL constants

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: cae
State-Changed-When: Mon Dec  9 15:10:17 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    I can confirm this on recent 3.3. The warning is from the preprocessor
    where we don't know about __extension__. Maybe the fix is to just
    document this. Anyway: Category changed to preprocessor and priority
    raised to medium because this is technically a regression.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7263