From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4600 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 06:19:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4591 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 06:19:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 06:19:46 -0000 Received: from warlock.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBC6GhN01333; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:16:44 -0800 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:55:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: Gabriel Dos Reis , Neil Booth cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [RFC] __extension__ and warnings Message-ID: <49870000.1039673803@warlock.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00624.txt.bz2 --On Wednesday, December 11, 2002 11:10:40 PM +0100 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Neil Booth writes: > > [...] > > | I propose a simpler solution: simply do not emit any pedwarns whilst > inside | the code affected by __extension__. This is easy to implement > inside | pedwarn() itself. > | > | With this, I can clear up some confused and confusing warning logic, > and fix | its interaction with cpplib's number interpreter. Thoughts? > > At first sight, I would say that sounds reasonable. I reserve my > comments for the concrete patch. It sounds plausible to me as well. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com