On 02/02/2017 14:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 2 February 2017 at 13:48, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> However, it yields false positives on code that doesn't contain any >> ambiguity (and is easier to read than lengthier code), such as: >> >> #if __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L >> >> Since __STDC_VERSION__ is a standard macro, it is quite obvious that >> even if __STDC_VERSION__ is not defined, this is not a typo. So, IMHO, >> -Wundef should whitelist some common macros (and/or perhaps let the >> user provide his own whitelist). > > Yes, it seems reasonable to not warn for __STDC_VERSION__ in C89 mode. > > If you spell it wrong it won't match the whitelist and so you'll still > get a warning. Should we open an enhancement request on the bugzilla? Regards.
