From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F0D385041D; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 08:38:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 01F0D385041D Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id a5-20020a7bc1c50000b02901e3bbe0939bso5343116wmj.0; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:38:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=R/fIaas75LZCu799bWHzsudII/EcGrDnKEbSQlgvOUc=; b=XuspklLwd9L69c+ONl24R2rhmvgCzCqxxlKtHiFzeOvXEUNUdvgYvT4pKezye/0x0R sV2hR01SHqIQjYihX50R5lXRnE3+pGom4+cNfHCX3WMvIN8VizSS/8pvVSTn2Mv3z+n6 Nu1PdOk8bgIRZvOirA0un/bPV0pRrQ6ivgyVedT0mtAID3p3mheZGY07bEj5Ly+5jiZQ +lY3Feasmfkh0FtzYw8EHfUhy3eZVar0WBPEbREkAjgbprzRUaq1wjbRXR9Z/Y82vNZO R+wJl8rmvwr0MTrAWZhUV1xJf5Pu9ASkBwZpZHAT5zF7/y6Il/OHujSYzOcuUdylmmqs RTJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531hShSNI07XloL7WQi7ZI3s6SwUn9b9xK4JdunYnClrMzzjCfFf pbW92lAhMVC2MKBNijyg28pFtpv+26ukEzOZjdA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqdrvOzoEUW5fw59YCIWMjRcmVk1EyyCtPMKH6j3CUQdWhbvqDJZDfXtiSbgANqeq9CoESq1cRnZXKGg2HGjo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2211:: with SMTP id z17mr9241818wml.17.1626424733046; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 01:38:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210716082709.GD2380545@tucnak> <20210716082906.GE2380545@tucnak> In-Reply-To: <20210716082906.GE2380545@tucnak> From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:38:41 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [committed] libstdc++: Suppress pedantic warnings about __int128 To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Jonathan Wakely , "libstdc++" , gcc-patches X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 08:38:55 -0000 On Fri, 16 Jul 2021, 09:30 Jakub Jelinek via Libstdc++, < libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:27:09AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 08:41:06AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via > Gcc-patches wrote: > > > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/max_size_type.h > > > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/max_size_type.h > > > @@ -417,7 +417,10 @@ namespace ranges > > > #endif > > > > > > #if __SIZEOF_INT128__ > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wpedantic" > > > using __rep = unsigned __int128; > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop > > > > At least in simple cases like this, wouldn't > > using __rep = __extension__ unsigned __int128; > > __extension__ using __rep = unsigned __int128; > actually (now tested). > Ah, thanks. I didn't find the right syntax, and I know __extension__ doesn't work in other cases, like quad float literals, so I assumed it doesn't work here. I suppose the literals don't work because the warning comes from the processor, which doesn't understand __extension__ (and also ignores the diagnostic pragma). > Jakub > >