"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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.
You're describing a defect, not the intended semantics. In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic errors. In C++, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic. -- Gaby
