Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 27 Mar 2007 11:53:18 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:23:47PM +0100, Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez wro=
te:
| > On 27/03/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >* Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 14:0=
8]:
| > >> C++ preprocessor emits errors by default for nonconformant code,
| > >> following the C++ frot-end default behaviour. Users can use the
| > >> -fpermissive option to downgrade these diagnostics from errors to
| > >> warnings.
| > >
| > >s/frot-end/front-end/
| > >
| > >I'm not sure whether "nonconformant code" is specific enough. Apart
| > >from this, it looks good.
| >
| > It comes from the definition of fpermissive in invoke.texi.
|
| Users aren't going to know from this language what has changed. Manuel=
,
| since you're the guy who has been studying the warnings lately: which
| other preprocessor diagnostics, other than "no newline at end of file",
| are affected by this change?
I believe there is a bug in the diagnostic flag setting.
A pedwarn is a warning by default. It becomes a hard error only if
-pedantic. If that is not happening, then we have a bug.
Then we have a bug indeed. Since 3.4.6 at least. Notice that such a
change is going to downgrade a lot of current errors to warnings.
my understanding of pedwarn (since over a decade) is I explained.
Now, if we do have some good diagnostics, we should not lose them,
as a matter of restoring the traditional meaning of pedwarns.
Do you have an approximate list of those diagnostics?
Nonetheless, if you really think it is a bug, I am willing to prepare
a patch to fix it in both the front-end and the preprocessor.
If a pedwarn is an error without -pedantic, then we have a bug.
Cheers,
Manuel.
