------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2005-09-15 17:50 ------- Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
dank at kegel dot com wrote: > gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name, > and letting them be turned on and off individually. > Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1? No. The difference is that this diagnostic should really be an error, we're just making it a pedwarn to allow noncompliant code to build when it's clear what it means. But I suppose if people want to be able to turn pedwarns on and off individually under the same scheme, I can accept that. Jason -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
