http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33101
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-16 21:46:05 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) > (I thought perhaps that the change had been made between > N3290 and the released standard, but apparently that's not the case.) See the text in bold at the top of the issues list: "Issues with DR and WP status are NOT part of the International Standard for C++." > The fact that C90 required the keyword further weakens my previous > argument. > > So the diagnostic is necessary, but I'd still suggest that a warning > would be more appropriate, and would still meet the current standard's > requirements. The current standard is C++11, that change is only in the current *draft* and that's not a standard. > (I should mention that I have no need for this myself; I don't even take > advantage of the permission to use "(void)" rather than "()".) Good, it's an abomination!
