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 C6C413858C52; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 13:18:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C6C413858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663939080;
	bh=QnnWLnUIjVyvt6v0CFhPo2uRVixxNfwTSYUtSHB/T9U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xaEmvvsg74bhkugSOc0TmSnDKyTLzd2JpfRQShbNSUAmJi0JY7guu42nJ0u7iatih
	 5uRZoaZJrJOC+h7OFnf8HORCAh2aqShP2qqdobh54AinkBeBRYdwGoWxFQyDvQ4IKc
	 iMcpLOm0zVWDIzrnztGDoVQwpgB4vYfY1J4vGKIk=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug preprocessor/48839] #error should terminate compilation -
 similar to missing #include
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 13:18:00 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: preprocessor
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-48839-4-CUgT3OY3NT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48839-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48839-4@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=3D48839

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #8)
> about the other compilers? For sure some are following the current gcc
> behaviour, for compatibility, I suspect ICC for example. Should we also h=
ave
> a command line switch? Probably missing #includes just unconditionally end
> the compilation on most compilers, though. Well, it's also true that the =
so
> called workaround which I mentioned in Comment #1 works pretty well and we
> do have *very* few fatal errors in the front ends...

Clang keeps going, like GCC. ICC seems to as well.

But EDG stops immediately with a "catastrophic error":

"foo.cc", line 1: catastrophic error: #error directive: NOPE


Anyway, I don't think compatibility is an issue. We're not going to produce=
 any
assembly or other output, compilation fails.=