------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 16:49 ------- We build everything with -Werror so errors are flagged as fatal. If we added -pedantic, we'd have to stop using -Werror, and implement the fatal error check ourselves in a wrapper, which would be a huge pain.
gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name, and letting them be turned on and off individually. See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Warning%20Message%20Control I thought I was asking for something along the same lines. I can't understand why anybody would oppose the ability to turn on and off warnings selectively; Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1? I am all in favor of forcing code to be C++ compliant, but I have to tell you I just spent the last year whipping a codebase into shape in that regard, and I'd really like to be able to pick my battles, and not have to fight the tools to do so. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
