From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13253 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2010 10:56:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 13192 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jul 2010 10:56:22 -0000 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 10:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100702105622.13191.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 10:56 ------- Why? All of them do, except -pedantic. I don't see any reason for -pedantic being exceptional. Or can I start proposing warnings options that do not start with -W? Should we introduce a special case for pedantic (code and documentation) for -Werror= and for -Wno-error= and for -Wno-? I can start opening PRs for the missing special cases. We would also need to introduce (and handle specially) -no-pedantic and -no-pedantic-errors. All the above is free if we just make -Wpedantic an alias for -pedantic. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774