Hi,
>
> This isn't actually necessary, they just need to make their test harness a
> bit
> smarter.
[snip]
Fair enough, I'm going to close the PR as invalid with a link to your
explanation.
Thanks!
Paolo
> Hi,
>
> I was having a look to this long standing, and unconfirmed, PR:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36778
>
> and the rationale makes sense to me. What do you think, shall we have
> -Wfatal-warnings too, together with -Wfatal-errors?
>
> AFAICS, the patch would be rat
Hi,
I was having a look to this long standing, and unconfirmed, PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36778
and the rationale makes sense to me. What do you think, shall we have
-Wfatal-warnings too, together with -Wfatal-errors?
AFAICS, the patch would be rather trivial, littl
