From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30144 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2005 19:34:21 -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 29976 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2005 19:33:39 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 19:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050915193339.29975.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" 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/msg01880.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-09-15 19:33 ------- Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class "jason at redhat dot com" writes: | 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. While I said previously that I would prefer a switch over a documented extensions; I would also like to point out that pedwarns really are differents beasts -- and really are errors. They are not like the kind of "uninitialized var" warnings. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782