From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26360 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2001 07:56:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26314 invoked by uid 71); 20 Nov 2001 07:56:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20011120075601.26309.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Neil Booth Subject: Re: preprocessor/4902: no macro redef warnings Reply-To: Neil Booth X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/4902; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Neil Booth To: "Golubev I. N." Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, Zack Weinberg Subject: Re: preprocessor/4902: no macro redef warnings Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:51:43 +0000 > Neil wrote in : > > > you get a warning iff -pedantic > > `(cpp)Undefining and Redefining Macros' does not say so. Neither does > it explain (or refer to explanation) why that change of requiring > `-pedantic' was made (making `gcc' different from many other compilers > which warn by default). > > Perhaps some people think that redefn warnings `trigger frequently on > harmless code' (as `-pedantic' description in `(cpp)Invocation' says), > but I disagree. My experience shows that more often than not they > detect real bugs. What do you think, Zack? Neil.