------- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2005-08-19 14:24 ------- (In reply to comment #4)
> The main reason is because adding extensions are bad now adays. We > are removing extensions which are not used that much and hard to > keep working. OK, I accept that. But then, I'm still in favour of collecting all ``dangerous'' extension, as suggested by the -Wgcc-extensions option, instead of suddenly implying a -half-pedantic behaviour which then can be turned off by a -not-so-pedantic option. That would IMHO violate POLA. > If somehow this gets added to a C standard, then the whole point of > warning goes away with -std=future, just like long long and C99. That raises the question: how would one propose adding this extension to the standard itself? As I said, a number of (commercial) compilers implement it as well already right now. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
