From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6341 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2005 16:49:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6317 invoked by uid 48); 15 Sep 2005 16:49:53 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050915164953.6316.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "dank at kegel dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040727131653.16782.bangerth@dealii.org> References: <20040727131653.16782.bangerth@dealii.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg01848.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- 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