--- Comment #5 from benoit dot hudson at gmail dot com 2007-11-08 15:35
---
The fact that the error appears in backward_warning.h is another annoyance,
which is probably why the overly long descriptive message is there. Better
would be that #include would only report " is
deprecated;
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 13:13 ---
This is my proposal.
"This header is deprecated and may be removed in the future. Please, consider
using an equivalent, non-deprecated interface for the requested functionality.
To disable this warning use -Wno-depre
--- Comment #3 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-11-08 11:23 ---
Subject: Re: warning in backward_warning.h is illegible
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| We cannot assume that people encountering the warning will have web access.
That is true. But, the
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| We cannot assume that people encountering the warning will have web access.
That is true. But, the majority of for those who do have a web
access, we should provide additional pointers.
Of course, the real solution is to leave these he
--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-11-08 11:05 ---
Let's add Benjamin in CC...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 10:56 ---
We cannot assume that people encountering the warning will have web access.
The warning can certainly be improved.
"A list of valid replacements is as follows: Use: Instead of:"
This doesn't actually explain what fol
