From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A2F9D3858D20; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 23:49:01 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A2F9D3858D20 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1707781741; bh=f2rBOsQB8wp4aRAiWUXKK1pfQMYoOQcHys36MIDDC20=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PG/OhS8bbrlMRBdxQOUOJ32M8BHxO7GXHrI9hB/tnTE9JVI06iOg3Nvan5bdBpyeK 6VRkz4J/v9vGph7WRIpIKkwwvGcEwAIdY6f3WJVOCclG+PNAwASrKePPWgOCd5tHHi G0B84BOMb4rH6me2TittMPuo5QFlIuI3SSsXI7bI= From: "mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/113760] [DR1693] gcc rejects valid empty-declaration in pedantic mode Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 23:49:01 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113760 --- Comment #12 from Marek Polacek --- Thank for your comment. In the end I went with -std=3Dc++03 -pedantic-errors -Wextra-semi -> warnings -std=3Dc++03 -pedantic -Wextra-semi -> warnings (not pedwarn) based on the principle that a more specific option overrides a more general option. This is also what clang++ does. Granted, -Wvla in C doesn't behave like that...=