------- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-10 14:44 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Those are seperate errors of course. I've meant that when compiler already > discovered that there is a conflict between number and number() it looks like > it's keeping on emitting errors on every occurence of symbol that becoms a > source of that conflict. In fact GCC found out that it is able to create nor > property number nor member number(); later compiler descried a reference to a > variable that is not exist (because it killed this variable later) and omitted > another error. I agree that compiler exhibits its strict behaviour there but > I'm not shure is it good for non-pedantic mode.
Ah, I see what you mean. -pedantic controls something different and I don't think it should suppress later errors as you suggest. You might want to try -Wfatal-errors, which will cause compilation to stop at the first error. That's still not exactly what you want, as it will prevent *all* further errors being printed and not just those which are related to the first one, but I think in general it would be very difficult for the compiler to determine if individual errors are caused by an earlier error and suppress them conditionally. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41002
