From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-181750-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23367 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2014 22:43:05 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23345 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jan 2014 22:43:04 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: mail-lb0-f177.google.com
Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f177.google.com) (209.85.217.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:43:03 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z5so3880592lbh.22        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:42:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.144.69 with SMTP id sk5mr277185lbb.44.1390776179501; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:42:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.143.70 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:42:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8738kak9a3.fsf@talisman.default>
References: <CABUYEh9Rvwg7mu1GfP8bCoGveSR=UDpxd2QSBH8fr_6bPArzcg@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1401241021120.3643@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr>	<8738kak9a3.fsf@talisman.default>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:44:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdQa3pUVe+Y+ri49J-_rvAKtVNWWNq=2x3=57VXTd_gmpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is C++11 to be default for GCC 4.9?
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Lars_Hagstr=C3=B6m?= <lars@foldspace.nu>, 	"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2

On 26 January 2014 16:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I can definitely sympathise with reading the message the other way though.
> If that's the only output you see, the natural assumption is that the
> "enabled by default" applies to the thing just before it.
>
> Any objections to changing it to "this warning is enabled by default"
> or "warning enabled by default"?  Or is that too verbose?

The former seems far too verbose to me, I could live with the latter
(even though it's only a few characters shorter!)