------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-11 02:04 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > You can get an error via -pedantic-errors.
>
> Agreed - but switching on that flag opens a whole can of worms.
Yes but then again as you said later on ...
> AFAIK, both front ends should be erroring this kind of code,
> because it's neither ISO C nor ISO C++.
So you cannot have it both ways, allow extensions but not allow extensions
(well except maybe long long with -Wno-long-long but that is the only one
really).
It is valid GNU C but not valid ISO C/C++. The behavior changed is to have it
be also valid GNU C++ and make the front-end consistent with each other.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38780
