From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80720 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2019 02:50:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 80711 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2019 02:50:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*Ad:U*jason, H*r:906, HCc:U*gcc, H*r:a17 X-HELO: mail-ed1-f50.google.com Received: from mail-ed1-f50.google.com (HELO mail-ed1-f50.google.com) (209.85.208.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 02:50:49 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-f50.google.com with SMTP id cx19so23074361edb.1 for ; Sun, 01 Dec 2019 18:50:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gwmail-gwu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=twbJggGxcimBUcHYTWswTJdKMkuwZ67E0RovdA8wdS0=; b=nps86BtOMtWm8uE9I6JxsSiGRv2bw0d2mCWTvd0q1bjbWvKXxfpTyetFvkurMgj6Io 5detlaC/sqLD/aZhXF+BkYKeOFrR/sVq+528K1Yw2o7HzZ19hXK7I0Z+BpvibUBiSAxf x7MVf5KBEbtlgzPwRp5OfR/X/qIaFS8U7kcrqyFZT3F/EU/x1mnbV0TwEx15SHW1MwEE h3INVMCUn8mTTHG2lzX0ohL/HfXR+wxHXxDGsSOTLu/C0fWiqrpTgkT3lDa8z5ronWSc vUFk9GJyYWXsFlS0nYlwD41CZdWzVc97n4rCjZ34H5KLJAkRrp9psny2ZGhySsUZ1RNh xupg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:906:c317:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 18:50:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2f583ca8-56ea-460f-bcaf-c70108451aa8@palves.net> References: <2f583ca8-56ea-460f-bcaf-c70108451aa8@palves.net> From: Eric Gallager Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 02:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GCC selftest improvements To: Pedro Alves Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , Andrew Dean , David Malcolm , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE" , "mikestump@comcast.net" , "law@redhat.com" , "jason@redhat.com" , Jonathan Wakely Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 On 10/31/19, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 10/26/19 11:46 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: > >> Nicholas Krause was also wanting to move to C++11 recently: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00110.html (this month) >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-09/msg00228.html (last month) >> As I said in that thread, I'd want to try just toggling -Wnarrowing >> from off to on first before going full C++11. > > Why? GDB went the other way when it moved to C++11. It switched > to C++11, and for several months, used -Wno-narrowing to quiet > the thousands of warnings. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#Wnarrowing Sorry, lost track of this conversation in the end-of-month mail archive rollover... Uh, to be honest, I guess I don't really have a rational reason for wanting to switch to -Wnarrowing first; it's really more of an emotional/aesthetic desire I have on my part... Feel free to do the switch in the other order if that turns out to be easier. Anyways, from the rest of the discussion, it looks like this will be waiting for GCC 11 anyways, so I'm already getting my "hold off 1 release" wish, so I guess I don't really care as much about the -Wnarrowing part as much any longer... Eric > >> So, GCC 10 would be >> C++98 + -Wnarrowing, and then GCC 11 could be full C++11. Plus then >> the GCC version numbers would also line up with the version of C++ >> being used. > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves >