[PATCH] explicit GNU flags
eli.friedman at gmail.com
Mon Aug 19 14:19:46 PDT 2013
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Peter N Lewis <peter at stairways.com.au>wrote:
> On 17/08/2013, at 19:13 , Peter N Lewis <peter at stairways.com.au> wrote:
> > On 17/08/2013, at 14:59 , Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Peter N Lewis <peter at stairways.com.au>
> >> On 17/08/2013, at 5:22 , Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> diag::ext_gnu_local_label shouldn't exist; it's not something we need
> to diagnose.
> >> Is it not a GNU extension to have local labels?
> >> Yes.
> >> Are you suggesting the I delete the diagnostic for local labels, or not
> add the explicit flag for that diagnostic?
> >> I'm suggesting you delete the diagnostic altogether; __label__ is in
> the implementation-reserved namespace.
> > OK, here it is again, this time with the local label warning removed
> entirely, so the "use of GNU locally declared label extension" will never
> be emitted.
> > If you prefer it as two separate patches, you can commit the previous
> version, and then I'll submit a new patch to remove the "use of GNU
> locally declared label extension" warning.
> Thinking about this further, it would be better done as two separate
> patches in case anyone ever wants to restore the __label__ warning, they
> can revert the second patch. So I would suggest committing the previous
> patch (which I include here for completeness) and then I'll submit a second
> patch removing the __label__ warning. Any other comments?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-commits