On 09/01/2008, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On 1/8/08, Ismail Dönmez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Oh that clears up my confusion. So the right fix would be downgrading this > >> redefinition problem to be pedwarn instead. But I see no point in creating > >> a > >> bug report if its just gonna be closed as invalid, so I hope we can discuss > >> if its feasible to downgrade this error to be a pedwarn. > > > > It is already a pedwarn. Just the C++ front-end enables pedwarn as > > being errors by default and downgrades them as being warnings with > > -fpermissive. This is the whole point of -fpermissive. > > Not at all!!! -fpermissive can (in weird cases, agreed) change code > generation. I'm pretty sure you don't want to risk that only to silence > an error.
What? That doesn't make any sense. And it is certainly not documented in the manual. I will be very interested in an example, no matter how weird or uncommon. As far as I understand, if you get an error, no code is generated. If you use -fpermissive and downgrade it to a warning, then code is generated. Yes, no code is different from code but I won't call that "changing code generation". If the code is wrong, then what is the point of allowing it to be downgraded to a warning? If the code is not conforming that is what the warning is telling you anyway and if you ignore, you assume your risk. So, I still think my analysis above is valid. Cheers, Manuel.
