------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-09-15 19:33 ------- Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
"jason at redhat dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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. While I said previously that I would prefer a switch over a documented extensions; I would also like to point out that pedwarns really are differents beasts -- and really are errors. They are not like the kind of "uninitialized var" warnings. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
