From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6679 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2010 01:46:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 6634 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2010 01:46:18 -0000 Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100704014618.6633.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: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" 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/msg00353.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-04 01:46 ------- Subject: Re: -Werror=edantic On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Let's restrict to -pedantic first. It is the only warning flag that doesn't > start with "-W". This breaks some code that expects that every warning flag > starts with -W. I want to introduce -Wpedantic as an alias. You do not like the > name. What is your suggestion? I do not object to -Wpedantic. I object to -Wpedantic-default or other variants involving "pedantic" for diagnostics currently enabled by default. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774