From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 010763858C39; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 01:17:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 010763858C39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707787030;
	bh=Ei9mD/nQ5lT+9B8Wd6P3alEQ/E/1TwkNE7I54MlMRB8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=MUK1qzfs706KejYnTTadlHs8JfKTRIZ2h3UDEu0DUao+Sda7ZkcE2w7MKHrsKnzvO
	 QmGAwAkvDMku/OTgzvbxJWTXCOAHUeXHfJKbL8KWCgmu7pJjNXTLHVGFrG5xljQ6jA
	 x1hq2RXaQIkzjmo2idDTpGKrhoXJo7mELP0XbUak=
From: "harald at gigawatt dot nl" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/113760] [DR1693] gcc rejects valid empty-declaration in
 pedantic mode
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 01:17:03 +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: harald at gigawatt dot nl
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: <bug-113760-4-FY6moaKuih@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113760-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113760-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113760

--- Comment #13 from Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> Thank for your comment.  In the end I went with
>=20
> -std=3Dc++03 -pedantic-errors -Wextra-semi -> warnings
> -std=3Dc++03 -pedantic -Wextra-semi -> warnings (not pedwarn)
>=20
> based on the principle that a more specific option overrides a more gener=
al
> option.  This is also what clang++ does.  Granted, -Wvla in C doesn't beh=
ave
> like that...

That also makes sense. The more specific option overriding a more general
option is also the reasoning why I expect no error with -pedantic-errors
-Wno-error=3Dextra-semi.=