From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21687 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2005 17:50:25 -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 21653 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2005 17:50:22 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050915175022.21652.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "jason at redhat 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/msg01855.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2005-09-15 17:50 ------- Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class dank at kegel dot com wrote: > gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name, > and letting them be turned on and off individually. > Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1? No. The difference is that this diagnostic should really be an error, we're just making it a pedwarn to allow noncompliant code to build when it's clear what it means. But I suppose if people want to be able to turn pedwarns on and off individually under the same scheme, I can accept that. Jason -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782