On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic-errors. In C++, a pedwarn is an error by default, a warning with -fpermissive. This is completely independent of whether a particular pedwarn call in the source is executed at runtime. Some are unconditional, and some only occur if -pedantic. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
