public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "dank at kegel dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:49:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20050915164953.6316.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20040727131653.16782.bangerth@dealii.org> ------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 16:49 ------- We build everything with -Werror so errors are flagged as fatal. If we added -pedantic, we'd have to stop using -Werror, and implement the fatal error check ourselves in a wrapper, which would be a huge pain. gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name, and letting them be turned on and off individually. See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Warning%20Message%20Control I thought I was asking for something along the same lines. I can't understand why anybody would oppose the ability to turn on and off warnings selectively; Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1? I am all in favor of forcing code to be C++ compliant, but I have to tell you I just spent the last year whipping a codebase into shape in that regard, and I'd really like to be able to pick my battles, and not have to fight the tools to do so. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-15 16:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: " bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-07-27 13:43 ` [Bug c++/16782] " lindahl at pathscale dot com 2004-08-16 0:25 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-09-14 22:43 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-14 22:58 ` bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-09-14 23:04 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-09-15 8:59 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 12:40 ` dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 13:04 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 13:09 ` dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 13:11 ` dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 14:24 ` jason at redhat dot com 2005-09-15 16:49 ` dank at kegel dot com [this message] 2005-09-15 17:50 ` jason at redhat dot com 2005-09-15 19:34 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-09-15 21:39 ` dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-27 23:37 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28 14:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28 14:51 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28 15:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20050915164953.6316.qmail@sourceware.org \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).